OT: SLU Medical Office

[NashvilleBilliken]

Green space is awesome when it's planned properly. On campus, the quad is a good example. Next door to campus, Leon Strauss Park at Grand and Washington is another good example. They're integrated with their surroundings.

Now consider the dog park/sculpture park/whatever it is at Grand and Lindell. It's green space, but at a prominent intersection that serves as the entrance to Grand Center - not a good spot for a largely passive green space. The neighborhood was better off before SLU tore down the Marina Building, which used to stand at that corner - that's a spot that would be better served by a mixed-use building which would help activate the surrounding area. SLU has traditionally taken a nilly-willy approach to development instead of actually planning out what they're going to do with their land.

Green space is good and plays an important role in making an area livable. It just needs to be thoughtfully developed.

Those are good points and I would agree. My response would be to take the green space we have and make it useful.

It's just my opinion obviously, but 9.9 times out of 10, I would rather tear down a building with little historical significance than build a new building in a green area in the middle of the city. I think that is very important.

[bonwich]

Was Lewis Hall the building that is now known as The Coronado?

Yup.

[SShoe]

Those are good points and I would agree. My response would be to take the green space we have and make it useful.

It's just my opinion obviously, but 9.9 times out of 10, I would rather tear down a building with little historical significance that build a new building in a green area in the middle of the city. I think that is very important.

Go look at this country's A-list cities - New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago to agree. What do all of them have in common? I'll give you a hint, excessive green space ain't one of them. These cities are built at very high densities, which creates highly walkable and vibrant environments that are attractive to visit, work, and live in. Sure, there are very well designed green-spaces in these cities (Central Park, Millennium Park, etc.), but green space like you see around SLU's campus are not commonplace.

[bonwich]

If this were Soulard, Washington, Grand Center, etc. I would say keep it up. But that area isn't ripe with historical significance of any kind. Only a stones throw away is a brand newish hospital, a brand new research building, a ###### old Captain D's oozing of historical relevance, and that dive bar that is tucked in behind there that probably didn't actually have a liquor license in the mid 2000's.

You don't know a whole lot about the history of Grand Center or Soulard, do you?

And that "brand-newish" hospital is a perfect example of why the Pevely building could easily stay. The front part, facing the street, is the old Vermin Deathlodge (Firmin Desloge), the original U. hospital. More than a few people wanted it torn down, too, when they put up the addition. It stayed. In a piece of twisted irony, he-who-would-always-rather-tear-down took the historic roofs from Firmin and the Med School and appended them in the Frankensteinian style to Gries, and then used them from that time forward as the architectural symbol of the U.

[brianstl]

Yes.

It is definitely the case in St Louis, especially downtown and in midtown.

[NashvilleBilliken]

Go look at this country's A-list cities - New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago to agree. What do all of them have in common? I'll give you a hint, excessive green space ain't one of them. These cities are built at very high densities, which creates highly walkable and vibrant environments that are attractive to visit, work, and live in. Sure, there are very well designed green-spaces in these cities (Central Park, Millennium Park, etc.), but green space like you see around SLU's campus are not commonplace.

You just sarcastically told me not to compare SLU's campus to Forest Park or Centennial Park. Now you sarcastically tell me to look at our A-List cities and compare them to SLU. Seem a bit hypocritical. Either way, I don't really appreciate the tone, so I'll bow out. I gave my opinion on the situation. Happy Holidays!

[Cowboy]

Go look at this country's A-list cities - New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago to agree. What do all of them have in common? I'll give you a hint, excessive green space ain't one of them. These cities are built at very high densities, which creates highly walkable and vibrant environments that are attractive to visit, work, and live in. Sure, there are very well designed green-spaces in these cities (Central Park, Millennium Park, etc.), but green space like you see around SLU's campus are not commonplace.

-are you comparing midtown st louis to these cities? maybe in 1904 that was appropriate, in 2011 i am not so sure

-if you were comparing the areas around urban campuses that would make sense to me

[joe_davola]

-are you comparing midtown st louis to these cities? maybe in 1904 that was appropriate, in 2011 i am not so sure

-if you were comparing the areas around urban campuses that would make sense to me

I think the point is that he wants midtown to be exactly what a midtown area should be for a major city. Building an abundance of green space is not going to get you there. We should use these A-list cities as prime examples of what we should strive to be.

[brianstl]

-are you comparing midtown st louis to these cities? maybe in 1904 that was appropriate, in 2011 i am not so sure

-if you were comparing the areas around urban campuses that would make sense to me

Part of the problem with St Louis City is the long string of planning decisions made since 1904. It is big part of the reason we are where we are now.

Better planning decisions won't correct all the mistakes of the past, but they will pervent some future problems.

[Cowboy]

-i am not in synch with the pov that midtown would be better without SLU, that SLU has been bad for midtown or that the recent resurgence of midtown happens if SLU had not solidified the area

-has SLU been perfect? nope --are things a lot better in the area because of SLU? in my mind without doubt

-and the point about not wanting greenspace as the entrance to the campus at grand and lindell, i guess the entrance to the medical campus is better served by a vacant bldg than greenspace or what SLU proposed

[SShoe]

You just sarcastically told me not to compare SLU's campus to Forest Park or Centennial Park. Now you sarcastically tell me to look at our A-List cities and compare them to SLU. Seem a bit hypocritical. Either way, I don't really appreciate the tone, so I'll bow out. I gave my opinion on the situation. Happy Holidays!

This was your quote - "It's just my opinion obviously, but 9.9 times out of 10, I would rather tear down a building with little historical significance than build a new building in a green area in the middle of the city. I think that is very important."

I'm not comparing St. Louis or SLU to those cities. I'm saying that we'll continue to be a third-tier town if people continue to think the best way to redevelop our central city is to tear down historic properties for more green space.

[Cowboy]

Part of the problem with St Louis City is the long string of planning decisions made since 1904. It is big part of the reason we are where we are now.

Better planning decisions won't correct all the mistakes of the past, but they will pervent some future problems.

-very good point on planning decisions, i guess that is part of why the flight to clayton has happened

[Cowboy]

I think the point is that he wants midtown to be exactly what a midtown area should be for a major city. Building an abundance of green space is not going to get you there. We should use these A-list cities as prime examples of what we should strive to be.

-metro area wise isn't stl about 1/4 the size of chicago? is that like comparing the world series wins of the white sox to the cardinals?

[SShoe]

-very good point on planning decisions, i guess that is part of why the flight to clayton has happened

St. Louis' outward migration and westward shift is really no different from the majority of other midwestern industrial cities that peaked in the middle of the 20th century. While certain local decisions and planning could have been better, federal policies (G.I. Bill, construction of the federal highway system, etc.) and general economic and market trends (increases in homeownership, wide-spread shift to automobiles from public transit, globalization and deindustrialization, advances in communication technology.) all had far more to do with the decline of the city.

[bonwich]

-i am not in synch with the pov that midtown would be better without SLU, that SLU has been bad for midtown or that the recent resurgence of midtown happens if SLU had not solidified the area

-has SLU been perfect? nope --are things a lot better in the area because of SLU? in my mind without doubt

-and the point about not wanting greenspace as the entrance to the campus at grand and lindell, i guess the entrance to the medical campus is better served by a vacant bldg than greenspace or what SLU proposed

Your first two -s cast the whole thing in black and white. No one has said Midtown would be better off without SLU or that SLU hasn't been very good for the area. What's been said, and the reason people are showing up at meetings more now, is that SLU -- as you just said -- isn't perfect. It's made, at least in the objectors' view, a whole lot of boneheaded moves. And for many of these boneheaded moves, no one has stood up to them, or at least those who did lacked the clout to have their objections heard.

As for the third, again, it just ain't black and white. First and foremost, that building has only been vacant for three years, during the worst real estate market in the past 75 years. Second, the entrance to the Med campus would be better served, I would argue, by a nice loft-style residence (preferably for med students and medical professionals working in the area) with an ambulatory care center wrapped around it.

[brianstl]

St. Louis' outward migration and westward shift is really no different from the majority of other midwestern industrial cities that peaked in the middle of the 20th century. While certain local decisions and planning could have been better, federal policies (G.I. Bill, construction of the federal highway system, etc.) and general economic and market trends (increases in homeownership, wide-spread shift to automobiles from public transit, globalization and deindustrialization, advances in communication technology.) all had far more to do with the decline of the city.

I think that both the location of the Jefferson National Expansion Park and the location of the interstate system played huge roles in the decline of the city's core. They completely eliminated a historic riverfront district, closed off the best land along the riverfront from any kind of development, cut off residential neighborhoods from each other, compltely cut off, lacledes landing from the rest of the city, completely cut off Chouteau's Landing from the rest off the city, made traveling the area by foot dangerous because off traffic patterns, etc.

[SShoe]

I think that both the location of the Jefferson National Expansion Park and the location of the interstate system played huge roles in the decline of the city's core. They completely eliminated a historic riverfront district, closed off the best land along the riverfront from any kind of development, cut off residential neighborhoods from each other, compltely cut off, lacledes landing from the rest of the city, completely cut off Chouteau's Landing from the rest off the city, made traveling the area by foot dangerous because off traffic patterns, etc.

I very much agree. I'm of the belief that once the new bridge is completed, that stretch of I-70 between the Arch grounds and the rest of downtown should be torn out. There is a movement towards that, but I find it hard to believe they'll prevail over MODOT.

[Billiken Rich]

The key question is, How long do you wait? Slu could be employing a ton of demo and construction people right now. Once the project is complete people would be employed in the new structure.

There are real human costs to delaying a project, perhaps for years, until the right developer can be found and the right deal can be done.

Dealing with an archaic city government has caused growth to shift to Clayton and farther flung suburbs as much as anything else

[slufanskip]

Fact: preventing this development prevents development and growth of the city, including job growth. Poor decision. Just like slowing up the waste of space del taco building. Saint Louis is a dying city: businesses leaving, population decreasing, jobs leaving, the housing market is one of the worst in the nation. At this rate, Chesterfield will be larger than St. Louis in a little more than a decade. This slows SLU (the one constant who continues to invest in the city) from continuing to do that.

Yes, but it'll have some nice f..king old buildings.

[Cowboy]

Your first two -s cast the whole thing in black and white. No one has said Midtown would be better off without SLU or that SLU hasn't been very good for the area. What's been said, and the reason people are showing up at meetings more now, is that SLU -- as you just said -- isn't perfect. It's made, at least in the objectors' view, a whole lot of boneheaded moves. And for many of these boneheaded moves, no one has stood up to them, or at least those who did lacked the clout to have their objections heard.

As for the third, again, it just ain't black and white. First and foremost, that building has only been vacant for three years, during the worst real estate market in the past 75 years. Second, the entrance to the Med campus would be better served, I would argue, by a nice loft-style residence (preferably for med students and medical professionals working in the area) with an ambulatory care center wrapped around it.

-in this case isn't black or white? either the bldg gets preserved or SLU gets to do what it wants?

-you say some, not necessarily you, are saying SLU has made ' a whole lot of boneheaded moves' - earlier you say " our dear alma mater has a very poor history of reusing buildings or of identifying buildings that have prospective reuse." and "Perhaps you should, especially if it involves things like codes and regulations. Several people on this board clearly know that they exist and that they need to be followed; SLU apparently doesn't think they're important -- or at least they don't apply to SLU, maybe because it's been so good for Midtown. " so while the first is not necessarily you the second two are so i am taking from that you are not favorable on SLU's use of its physical plant

-sshoe, box and eckelkamp have in this thread said that SLU has been less than very good to the area

-what is the historic nature of this bldg?

[jimbofive]

i'm not very good at the big picture. all i know is that about 2/3 of the human population needs to die, ASAP.

[joe_davola]

-metro area wise isn't stl about 1/4 the size of chicago? is that like comparing the world series wins of the white sox to the cardinals?

Using great world class cities as something to strive for is a bad thing? Just because STL is a third of the size does not eliminate STL from once again becoming a world class city. See the problem with STL is that people just give up and say the hell with it, we are what we are. That's not my mentality regarding St. Louis and I know a lot of posters see it the same way.

[slufanskip]

What makes a building historic? Serioulsy, and old dairy is a historic building?

Is the idea here that more people will live, shop, and work in area with more old rehabbed buildings than would if the old buildings were torn down and beautiful new ones were built?

Seriously, I'm just a simple minded aging fool, but we live in a country where businesses are closing every day, almost 50% of the people don't make enough money to even pay taxes.Oour corperate tax rates are among the highest in the world and we still operate on a staggering deficit. If it cost taxpayers 1 penny to save the old building I'm not the only old fool

[Cowboy]

Using great world class cities as something to strive for is a bad thing? Just because STL is a third of the size does not eliminate STL from once again becoming a world class city. See the problem with STL is that people just give up and say the hell with it, we are what we are. That's not my mentality regarding St. Louis and I know a lot of posters see it the same way.

-absolutely we should strive to improve, to once again be a world class city should be the goal, it is my contention SLU getting to build the new bldg goes to getting us to being a world class city more than allowing a vacant bldg to sit there

[joe_davola]

-absolutely we should strive to improve, to once again be a world class city should be the goal, it is my contention SLU getting to build the new

bldg goes to getting us to being a world class city more than allowing a vacant bldg to sit there

And I disagree. Slu has a horrible history of

adapting to their surroundings and that includes that disgusting design they put up a few years ago. I would argue the exact opposite. Look slu is obviously helping by increasing the amount of facility space they are just doing it the wrong way. There are plenty of vacant lots to build on and this building will be reused at some point. You probably would have said the same thing about the Coronado.