OT: SLU Medical Office

[bills10]

Fr. Biondi is building a college campus that will attract students. He is not trying to build a "city" that will attract yuppies.

These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact seeing them in that light is antagonistic to the jesuit mission

[AlumniFan]

These are not mutually exclusive, and in fact seeing them in that light is antagonistic to the jesuit mission

I could not disagree more. Biondi has a fiduciary duty to the university and it's students first and foremost. He can be a good neighbor and many believe that he has been, including me. But, his job is to build a university, both physically and otherwise, that attracts students and facilitates their education. No one is perfect, not Biondi, not Majerus, not even Brian Conklin, but the net good Biondi has done far outweighs everything else. We all have the right to criticize, but we should not lose sight of the reality of the situation, especially the economics of that reality and how it impacts those involved.

Another thing that occurred to me - SLU encompasses a grand total of 0.556% of the available land in the city of St. Louis, yet SLU is probably one of the top entities in terms of being a driver of economic development in the city. Why doesn't the mass of preservationists and those passionate about the city go after the owners of the other 99.44% of land in the city, MANY of whom are completely and totally derelict in their responsibilities with respect to the quality of life in the city of St. Louis? Instead, many of these people tilt at windmills (e.g. the Del Taco building) instead of actually pursuing the real problems and those who cause the problems.

[TheA_Bomb]

I think so much of this is opinion. As I stated, I don't like the Doisy building at all. I would like that area, and all areas of the city, to be safe, densely populated with great lofts/single family, turn of century homes, and cool restaurants (that would keep someone busy...) and bars on every corner. I also want the Billikens to win the national championship annually and for Biondi to announce the return of football with a massive contribution from the Bank of Roy. None of these are going to happen.

What can and is happening is the development around SLU when and IF projects are economically viable. If we, as a society, take steps to make them unviable based on our personal OPINIONS, the practical outcome is potentially very adverse to the future of the city. Now, if every developer was viciously competing for highly desirable parcels of land it would be different, but they're not. As a matter of fact, it's not even close to that. There are tons of vacant land, dilapidated buildings, and non-functional structures that will only be redeveloped IF it makes financial sense. Life is full of trade-offs. I would prefer sensible, economically viable, if imperfect redevelopment, that occurs during my lifetime as opposed to a utopian approach that continues to stymie the progress of a city I love.

Thank God SLU has done what they have...even if everyone doesn't like it.

I think you're missing the point. This building was a dairy. It harkens back to an important time in our history when people used to milk cows and drink it. My grandmother told me a story once about how when she was a little girl they used to open a fresh jug of milk and drink it with their breakfast. Dairies once provided that milk and cheese as well. With the loss of Del Taco this dairy lost a client for its cheese and we lost a piece of our history. SLU once tore down an old Boatman's Bank and replaced it with a fountain. If that Boatman's Bank had stayed it would've been a visual history lesson to SLU students and others in Mid-town of a bygone era when people used to visit bank tellers. This grass is ripping out the very ubraness and soul of the area. If only we had less grass and all these buildings were revitalized by new businesses, preferably green collar industry, St. Louis would reascend to its rightful place atop the cities of the US and regain its soul.

Check out this documentary on the dangers of development.

[billiken_roy]

I think you're missing the point. This building was a dairy. It harkens back to an important time in our history when people used to milk cows and drink it. My grandmother told me a story once about how when she was a little girl they used to open a fresh jug of milk and drink it with their breakfast. Dairies once provided that milk and cheese as well. With the loss of Del Taco this dairy lost a client for its cheese and we lost a piece of our history. SLU once tore down an old Boatman's Bank and replaced it with a fountain. If that Boatman's Bank had stayed it would've been a visual history lesson to SLU students and others in Mid-town of a bygone era when people used to visit bank tellers. This grass is ripping out the very ubraness and soul of the area. If only we had less grass and all these buildings were revitalized by new businesses, preferably green collar industry, St. Louis would reascend to its rightful place atop the cities of the US and regain its soul. Check out this documentary on the dangers of development.

i am so glad all the young people out there had a chance to read this spectacular post. not only is it authentic double speak satire at it's best, tell me the last time you witnessed a successfully inserted use of the word, "urbaness".

btw, after living through this thread yesterday, i indeed enjoyed a glass of milk this morning for breakfast instead of the usual coke zero or a cup of coffee. maybe that is the real victory in all this. building a better city one glass of milk at a time.

[Pistol]

I don't think anyone on this board, or who voiced their opinion against SLU's plan for the landmarked building it bought (with the full knowledge it was landmarked, as a reminder), or who have been critical of some of Biondi's decisions are saying that Biondi or SLU are always wrong. Seems to me everyone involved is just looking at this individual case, and a majority came to the conclusion that SLU's plan for the site was not a good one.

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

Maybe this example fits: say you bought your house in a subdivision that didn't permit above-ground pools and you wanted to build an above-ground pool and the subdivision got together and voted to disallow you to build it- they have every right to do so because you bought your house with the knowledge of this and other restrictions.

SLU bought a landmarked building with the knowledge the building's status would create serious roadblocks for demolition and serious red tape for redevelopment. The burden is on SLU to come up with a plan that the community supports.

[SShoe]

I don't think anyone on this board, or who voiced their opinion against SLU's plan for the landmarked building it bought (with the full knowledge it was landmarked, as a reminder), or who have been critical of some of Biondi's decisions are saying that Biondi or SLU are always wrong. Seems to me everyone involved is just looking at this individual case, and a majority came to the conclusion that SLU's plan for the site was not a good one.

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

Maybe this example fits: say you bought your house in a subdivision that didn't permit above-ground pools and you wanted to build an above-ground pool and the subdivision got together and voted to disallow you to build it- they have every right to do so because you bought your house with the knowledge of this and other restrictions.

SLU bought a landmarked building with the knowledge the building's status would create serious roadblocks for demolition and serious red tape for redevelopment. The burden is on SLU to come up with a plan that the community supports.

Pistol, everybody is for individual property rights until it is their own neighbor's property.

[TheA_Bomb]

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

Those guys are soulless sell out, simpletons.

[billiken_roy]

Those guys are soulless sell out, simpletons.

i'll take that as a compliment. i aspire to be one of the 1% someday.

[AlumniFan]

I don't think anyone on this board, or who voiced their opinion against SLU's plan for the landmarked building it bought (with the full knowledge it was landmarked, as a reminder), or who have been critical of some of Biondi's decisions are saying that Biondi or SLU are always wrong. Seems to me everyone involved is just looking at this individual case, and a majority came to the conclusion that SLU's plan for the site was not a good one.

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

Maybe this example fits: say you bought your house in a subdivision that didn't permit above-ground pools and you wanted to build an above-ground pool and the subdivision got together and voted to disallow you to build it- they have every right to do so because you bought your house with the knowledge of this and other restrictions.

SLU bought a landmarked building with the knowledge the building's status would create serious roadblocks for demolition and serious red tape for redevelopment. The burden is on SLU to come up with a plan that the community supports.

Wait a minute. Using your logic about people who live in the city (a very large geographic area) and above ground pools, if I live in Webster and someone in Creve Couer wants to tear down a building, I should be very concerned. I just don't think that makes sense. I get that there are some unique attributes to the city, but unless you live within, at the most, 10 blocks of this Pevely building, I think it is disingenuous to use your above ground pool example. Will you and other city residents express the same level of concern when a historic building up in Penrose is torn down? What about in Fairgrounds or up on Natural Bridge?

[jbizzle09]

I don't think anyone on this board, or who voiced their opinion against SLU's plan for the landmarked building it bought (with the full knowledge it was landmarked, as a reminder), or who have been critical of some of Biondi's decisions are saying that Biondi or SLU are always wrong. Seems to me everyone involved is just looking at this individual case, and a majority came to the conclusion that SLU's plan for the site was not a good one.

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

Maybe this example fits: say you bought your house in a subdivision that didn't permit above-ground pools and you wanted to build an above-ground pool and the subdivision got together and voted to disallow you to build it- they have every right to do so because you bought your house with the knowledge of this and other restrictions.

SLU bought a landmarked building with the knowledge the building's status would create serious roadblocks for demolition and serious red tape for redevelopment. The burden is on SLU to come up with a plan that the community supports.

Pistol, I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. Everyone can make try to make their points about what they think is wrong or right with this particular case, or go further and try to make it some kind of overall societal issue. But, in the end, it was a very real possibility that this was going to occur due to the rules in place. This was well known to SLU. Everything else is moot and nothing more than blather. The analogy you used with the subdivision was spot on, in my opinion.

[Pistol]

Wait a minute. Using your logic about people who live in the city (a very large geographic area) and above ground pools, if I live in Webster and someone in Creve Couer wants to tear down a building, I should be very concerned. I just don't think that makes sense. I get that there are some unique attributes to the city, but unless you live within, at the most, 10 blocks of this Pevely building, I think it is disingenuous to use your above ground pool example. Will you and other city residents express the same level of concern when a historic building up in Penrose is torn down? What about in Fairgrounds or up on Natural Bridge?

It's not about distance; my example was just to point out what goes into buying a property with restrictions. SLU must live with those restrictions. Everyone within the City is subject to the City's taxes, laws, and regulations. That gives City residents the right to voice an opinion about buildings in the City. The residents of the City didn't approve of SLU's plan.

SLU (and a lot of private developers, for some reason) receive huge tax incentives for development projects. Taxpayers should have a major say in those developments.

If you don't think that City residents care about what happens in North City, you haven't been following the Paul McKee Northside saga. Here's the latest, if you're interested: http://www.stltoday....752ba65bb3.html

Webster and Creve Coeur are different cities. I'm not interested in what they do in their own city limits.

I live about 10 blocks from the Pevely building, for what it's worth.

[joe_davola]

No one is perfect, not Biondi, not Majerus, not even Brian Conklin, but the net good Biondi has done far outweighs everything else.

The Rammer? Porter?

[jbizzle09]

Wait a minute. Using your logic about people who live in the city (a very large geographic area) and above ground pools, if I live in Webster and someone in Creve Couer wants to tear down a building, I should be very concerned. I just don't think that makes sense. I get that there are some unique attributes to the city, but unless you live within, at the most, 10 blocks of this Pevely building, I think it is disingenuous to use your above ground pool example. Will you and other city residents express the same level of concern when a historic building up in Penrose is torn down? What about in Fairgrounds or up on Natural Bridge?

I think it was a good analogy. And you are kind of making a false equivalency, anyway. Webster Groves and Creve Couer are individual cities that have their own laws and restrictions. St. Louis is also one individual city. While St. Louis is a much larger city than Webster Groves, or Creve Couer, or Richmond Heights, it is still one individual city like those others. Structures in Penrose and Fairground Park, or Carondelet, or any other neighborhood within the city limits, are subject to the restrictions and ordinances that the city has imposed. They are also subject to whatever those neighborhood associations (if any) have put in place.

While one can argue about too much oversight, restriction, lack of free will or what have you, the fact is that anyone building or developing anything needs to be very clear on what those restrictions are and adhere to them. And that is basically the overall point in this discussion. While many can disagree, claim too much government, too much interference with free enterprise, too much attention given to too few parties, it is all really for naught. SLU has to either incorporate the Pevely building into the new structure or build elsewhere.

[slufanskip]

I don't think anyone on this board, or who voiced their opinion against SLU's plan for the landmarked building it bought (with the full knowledge it was landmarked, as a reminder), or who have been critical of some of Biondi's decisions are saying that Biondi or SLU are always wrong. Seems to me everyone involved is just looking at this individual case, and a majority came to the conclusion that SLU's plan for the site was not a good one.

I also find it interesting that so many in this thread who have made the case "SLU owns it, SLU can do whatever it wants" are not City residents. It's easy to voice such a simplistic, black-and-white opinion when you don't live in a larger, more complex city with larger, more complex problems that require more complex evaluation and solutions.

Maybe this example fits: say you bought your house in a subdivision that didn't permit above-ground pools and you wanted to build an above-ground pool and the subdivision got together and voted to disallow you to build it- they have every right to do so because you bought your house with the knowledge of this and other restrictions.

SLU bought a landmarked building with the knowledge the building's status would create serious roadblocks for demolition and serious red tape for redevelopment. The burden is on SLU to come up with a plan that the community supports.

This isn't about what people who live in the city want. I'd bet a grand that if you took a vote including all city residents with the options of letting the building stand or to do what SLU wants to do now. SLU would win hands down. I read Joe's post on why this building is historic ... yeah ok, sure. Next will have the house in South Oak Cliff where I used to get my ass beat almost daily (deservedly by the way) deemed historic as a link to an era when parent could beat their kids as they wished.

In the end for me there is one simple question. Has making this building historic cost 1 dollar of tax payer money? Will turning down SLU's plan and waiting for a better use to save the building cost 1 dollar to tax payers? If the answers are no, I don't give a $###### what happens, let SLU fight it out with whomever. If it does, then I do care and we need to stop and get to building the new med complex immediately.

I'd agree there are a few buildings and places that should be deemed historic and preserved, however, if this is one of them, we're going way, way, overboard. Anybody who has the cash can spend their money and buy and save any building they like. However, bull$hit like this and hundreds of other "projects" or causes is why our country is in the situation it is.

Have any cause you want, just don't ask everyone else to pay for it.

And along with this I also believe every citizen should have the constitutional right to hit a politician in the head with a baseball bat in the head daily

[Pistol]

In the end for me there is one simple question. Has making this building historic cost 1 dollar of tax payer money? Will turning down SLU's plan and waiting for a better use to save the building cost 1 dollar to tax payers? If the answers are no, I don't give a $###### what happens, let SLU fight it out with whomever. If it does, then I do care and we need to stop and get to building the new med complex immediately.

Have any cause you want, just don't ask everyone else to pay for it.

Taxpayers are a factor, true. SLU buys these buildings with little or no tax bill (does anyone have any rough numbers?), and often with tax incentives above and beyond a simple tax break. Look around Midtown and it's clear that the School has not been subject to much in the way of regulations, either. So when it runs into a roadblock here and there- and this certainly is one- that's part of the territory for a non-profit operating like a real estate developer with lower taxes. Sometimes they have to answer to the taxpayers and the rules they've already established, whether they like it or not.

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out that SLU bought a landmarked building with prior restrictions on it.

[bleedtheblue]

I haven't read the entire thread but about all that green space near the research building..... I heard (and could be completely wrong) that the green space cannot support any more structures due to a series of caves and caverns/underground water... Anyone else hear this? I am a grad student (and did my undergrad at slu) in the physical therapy program so I am down on that campus everyday all day.

But if that is not the case, I agree it is just a waste of space.

[jbizzle09]

I haven't read the entire thread but about all that green space near the research building..... I heard (and could be completely wrong) that the green space cannot support any more structures due to a series of caves and caverns/underground water... Anyone else hear this? I am a grad student (and did my undergrad at slu) in the physical therapy program so I am down on that campus everyday all day.

But if that is not the case, I agree it is just a waste of space.

I would find that unlikely due to the fact that most of the green space supported large structures in the past. But I could be wrong. Anyone?

[MusicCityBilliken]

I haven't read the entire thread but about all that green space near the research building..... I heard (and could be completely wrong) that the green space cannot support any more structures due to a series of caves and caverns/underground water... Anyone else hear this? I am a grad student (and did my undergrad at slu) in the physical therapy program so I am down on that campus everyday all day.

But if that is not the case, I agree it is just a waste of space.

Wasn't that an issue when designing and building the Chaifetz?

[Cowboy]

Taxpayers are a factor, true. SLU buys these buildings with little or no tax bill (does anyone have any rough numbers?), and often with tax incentives above and beyond a simple tax break. Look around Midtown and it's clear that the School has not been subject to much in the way of regulations, either. So when it runs into a roadblock here and there- and this certainly is one- that's part of the territory for a non-profit operating like a real estate developer with lower taxes. Sometimes they have to answer to the taxpayers and the rules they've already established, whether they like it or not.

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out that SLU bought a landmarked building with prior restrictions on it.

-i thought i was done with this thread, and many probably wish i was, but i have to ask how tax status established by the FEDERAL govt enters the conversation on how or why or what SLU can do anything related to its phyiscal plant? the impact to the city is no property tax paid by not for profits, i get that, but i would think if a decision on how or why or what SLU can do with its property was decided on SLU's tax status the lawyers would be flying all over that one and SLU would win, but i am not a lawyer and i could be totally wrong, nark or someone?

[jjray]

I haven't read the entire thread but about all that green space near the research building..... I heard (and could be completely wrong) that the green space cannot support any more structures due to a series of caves and caverns/underground water... Anyone else hear this? I am a grad student (and did my undergrad at slu) in the physical therapy program so I am down on that campus everyday all day.

But if that is not the case, I agree it is just a waste of space.

Buildings stood on those three city blocks for over 100 years. Father Bulldozer knocked them down to build his research tower. Maybe they are not suitable for more high rise towers but there are many other uses than a sterile field of grass.

[Box and Won]

I would find that unlikely due to the fact that most of the green space supported large structures in the past. But I could be wrong. Anyone?

I've heard that, but was told it's just an urban legend/SLUmor.

[bonwich]

-i thought i was done with this thread, and many probably wish i was, but i have to ask how tax status established by the FEDERAL govt enters the conversation on how or why or what SLU can do anything related to its phyiscal plant?

Because you put the word FEDERAL in all caps. No one had previously mentioned it. SLU (as far as we all know) pays no CITY property taxes (and elsewhere gets CITY tax benefits like the TIF used to pay part of the bill for Chaifetz).

[Pistol]

-i thought i was done with this thread, and many probably wish i was, but i have to ask how tax status established by the FEDERAL govt enters the conversation on how or why or what SLU can do anything related to its phyiscal plant? the impact to the city is no property tax paid by not for profits, i get that, but i would think if a decision on how or why or what SLU can do with its property was decided on SLU's tax status the lawyers would be flying all over that one and SLU would win, but i am not a lawyer and i could be totally wrong, nark or someone?

SLU has gotten City tax incentives in the past. Didn't it get a big lump for the Arena? I'm not questioning SLU's tax status as a non-profit.

We can even pull the tax discussion out altogether, and the fact remains the same: SLU bought a property with restrictions. THAT is what keeps it from doing whatever it wants with the site.

[Pistol]

Because you put the word FEDERAL in all caps. No one had previously mentioned it. SLU (as far as we all know) pays no CITY property taxes (and elsewhere gets CITY tax benefits like the TIF used to pay part of the bill for Chaifetz).

This is what I meant, by the way. Thanks, Bonwich!

[davidnark]

-i thought i was done with this thread, and many probably wish i was, but i have to ask how tax status established by the FEDERAL govt enters the conversation on how or why or what SLU can do anything related to its phyiscal plant? the impact to the city is no property tax paid by not for profits, i get that, but i would think if a decision on how or why or what SLU can do with its property was decided on SLU's tax status the lawyers would be flying all over that one and SLU would win, but i am not a lawyer and i could be totally wrong, nark or someone?

SLU's tax status has zero direct impact on the decision and isn't part of the review process. If, however, SLU was competing with a for-profit developer for the site, the city may have an incentive to favor the for-profit to maximize the tax revenue from the site (but it still wouldn't legally be a factor in this board's review). In Clayton--where there remains a high demand for property among developers--Wash U has been criticized for eating away at the property tax base when it expands its footprint.