Mississippi Bluffs Project To Destroy More Than the Doering Mansion

Before I attended last Monday’s Preservation Board meeting my main problem with this develop was that it called for razing the derelict, but salvageable, Doering Mansion. During the meeting I got a closer look at the details of the final project and I didn’t like what I saw.

From the marketing literature:

“Compromising fifty-six townhouses on eight acres, Mississippi Bluffs is offered by Mississippi Bluffs, L.L.C. On the east lies the Mississippi River; to the west, a beautifully landscaped park. The townhouses have been thoughtfully designed, using the colors of nature with respect to this unique site. Two tiers of homes allow for the greatest embrace of the spectacular view, one built on the natural bluff, the other on a massive bluff extension.”

This glosses over a couple of problems, the “beautifully landscaped park” and the “massive bluff extension.” The open green we are used to seeing along the site will basically be reduced in half as the 32 “Hilltop” units will be much closer to Broadway. The new “bluff”, better known as a pile of fill dirt, will raise the grade substantially. This will necessitate the removal of many existing trees.

At left is the proposed site plan with the river along the top and Broadway along the bottom. The gray roofs shown in the middle are the “Hilltop” units built on top of artificial fill. A drive runs along the West side of these buildings to serve all 32 garages. Guest parking is provided along this drive.

Alderman Villa testified at the meeting that other developers such as Balke-Brown had proposed “affordable” apartments for the site while retaining the Doering Mansion. But Villa didn’t want apartments. A few neighbors & some folks buying into the project spoke that having townhouses was better than more apartments. Some noted problems down the street with current section 8 housing. They all spoke as though the only alternatives to the current proposal was going to be apartments. Hardly true but effective.

The irony is that when built this will look like an apartment complex.

The elevations from Broadway do two things. One that only show you one of the four identical buildings — you never get the full effect of all four. Second, they omit the 32 staircases that get you from the drive to the main level above the 32 garage doors.

Let me explain the section shown at left. Broadway is on the far left, the river on the right. The shaded section toward the right is one of the existing old nursing home buildings on the site while the other buildings shown are the proposed. The dashed line is the existing grade line. The “Hilltop” is the artificially raised area in the middle of the site. The new building at 3 levels is taller than the existing 4-level building due to the changes in grade. From this view you can see how the large open expanse we now know is going to change dramatically. Pedestrians walking by on Broadway will see guest cars parked up high on the drive, 32 stairs and the undersides of all the balconies. This, proponents argue, is a better solution than a 5-6 story structure. I respectfully disagree. I prefer to see a 5-6 story building built over structured parking at the rear of the property — with or without the Doering Mansion. This would allow the existing grade and trees to remain unchanged.

Another problem with this project is that it has no pedestrian connection, it is an auto-only development. Shouldn’t we expect developers to connect new residences in the city to the public sidewalk?

The entire process at the Preservation Board was politically influenced in my view. Without influence the staff would have recommended to the board they not approve the request for demolition on the old building. They also would have said the bluff, which is protected by a historic district, should not be so altered. But the recommendation was to give preliminary approval with a few trivial conditions (read full report here). The board approved the staff recommendation by a vote of 6-2. The Preservation Board, in my view, completely ignored the criteria set forth in the Preservation Review Ordinance. The two dissenters were saying they thought a compromise was possible. I agree. Both who thought a compromise was possible are architects.

One member of the Preservation Board really pissed me off. I had explained how the Doering Mansion had never been available on the open market and that people had tried to buy it separately but that the previous owner, even though they could not maintain it, would never sell it. Later in discussion she dismisses these facts of this particular case and says people have bought properties from other nursing home owners. Okay, maybe in other cases that was true. In this case Good Samaritan refused to sell. The end result is we never tested the market to see if a potential home buyer was out there willing to restore the Mansion — a consideration the Preservation Board has given other properties when less political pressure was applied to approve the current proposal.

Some neighbors I spoke to, that are opposed to the demolition, suggested they may take legal action to challenge the decision of the Preservation Board. Given some of the testimony such as Alderman Villa saying the mansion could likely be renovated doesn’t bode well for a judge reviewing the transcript and ordinance.

Instead of trying to work on alternatives that respect the trees and grade and perhaps retain the old mansion we’ve pushed through another half-baked project in the name of progress. This is really a pity since the site is so spectacular. We could have a great restored mansion and 60-100 owner-occupied units on the combined 8.2 acre site. Such a compromise would more respectful of the history of the bluff as well as providing much needed density for the future.

- Steve