Thoughts Following the Neighborhood Meeting on St. Aloysius
Tonight I attended a meeting at the Southwest Garden Neighborhood Association where people had the chance to say what they feel about the proposed demolition of the church and the proposed homes to be build. Many that spoke did not like the new home built by the developer at 2712 January. Many also spoke fondly of the church and adjacent buildings. However, they also have a negative view of condos. Basically, they seem to want a condo-free neighborhood.
I talked to a few people after the meeting and I get the impression they think single family is the only way to create a safe and stable neighborhood. Also, they fear lots of cars and traffic problems. However, the reality of this site is condos would create about the same number of units as single family houses so we’re talking about the same number of cars.
It was brought up a couple of times at the meeting was that nobody objected to the project until the Preservation Board meeting in December and that it was in the neighborhood’s October newsletter that went out to 3,000 households in the area. I had wondered numerous times why nobody responded. Tonight I was able to pick up a copy of the newsletter and I have a much better understanding after reading what was written. On page four of eight was a picture of the church and the headline, “St. Aloysius Gonzaga to become Magnolia Square.” Here is the text exactly as printed in the newsletter:
Wohlert Co. LLC was the successful bidder for the property fondly referred to as St. Al’s. After demolition of the existing structures Wohlert Co. plans to build Magnolia Square, a new development of 22 to 24 single family homes complete with detached garages and alley access. The lots are anticipated to measure 30 x 100′. Removal of the buildings will be according to the guidelines established by the St. Louis Archdiocese.
DiMartino Homes will build the homes to suit and will offer several floor plans and elevations. Lots will start at $75,000 and finished homes will start at $225,000. Demolition is to begin in November. Paul Fendler & Associates will provide architectural services, AMR will provide plumbing services, and Fielder Electric will handle electric.
Project Manager, Jim Wohlert will speak at our October 24th meeting
Could they have done anything else to say “this is a done deal so don’t even think about objecting?” If people made it to page four they probably glanced over it and thought there was nothing they could do to stop it now.
The demolition is just mentioned as a matter of fact. No mention is made of a public hearing before the Preservation Board. No mention is made of the Planning Commission looking at the proposed development at their December meeting. It is all ‘this is what is going to happen.’ Not a word of asking for input into what could happen. One woman that spoke tonight summed it up when she said she feels like it doesn’t matter what she says because it is going to happen anyway.
Our most vibrant neighborhoods include a mix of housing types including condos and for rent projects that take advantage of federal historic rehab tax credits. Without condo projects many areas seeing new residents would be stagnating. I remain convinced this complex is a major asset within the City of St. Louis and it would be a loss if it were razed.
– Steve
The combination of a compliant neighborhood association, all-powerful alderman, omniscient priest, and supplicant, loyal residents make the actual approval/ordinance system a mere formality.
Part of this can also be attributed to the Catholic tendency to not question authority, and its inverse, that Catholic leaders are infallible-whether priest or alderman.
Shhhh…what’s that sound (rumble..rumble)? Oh, nothing. Just the sound of a couple of D-9 Caterpillar tractors warming up….
On the serious side, did anyone explain why the proect was delayed, and the possible other options for the site? Was anyone interested?
Or were they more of the “any development is good development” mindset?
After decades of living under the tradition of aldermanic courtesy, most city residents (especially southside seniors, whom aldermen consider to be their bread and butter), do not think they have any role or voice in the development decisions in the neighborhoods.
No, it’s not the syndrome you’ve mentioned “courtesy-itis”. It’s “underdog-itis”.
When your parish has been written off as nothing for years, it gets rough chasing all the windmills that come by and defending your honor.
It just makes you so sad to see a place you’ve loved looted for the treasures your ancestors worked, saved and sacrificed for years to get.
That’s why I’m choosing to make history known, because no one else cares to do so. There is simplicity and richness and I want my kid to know from where he came; from that beautiful, kind community where he was baptised.
Interesting. Now that you mention it, St. Louis City Hall does look more like a scary house of worship than a government building…
BTW City Hall is modelled after the Paris Hotel de Ville (City Hall).
Paris’s is a gray stone…not sure if it’s granite or what. It is much prettier IMNSHO. That “peach” stone on ours looks nasty when dirty.
NOTE: this is my own, wholly biases opinion. I am not an architect or building trades person, but I was raised in the household of a union tradesman.
This is all very confusing.
Why is it so necessary to fast track the demolition of St. Aloysius, when plans are afoot for the reuse of Holy Family and St. Boniface? What’s the difference?
Who’s the official A-D spokepserson now?
[REPLY – I’m very confused. I wasn’t sure if I was attending a church meeting or a neighborhood meeting. One person spoke in favor of demolition because the buildings didn’t matter to God. Yet another said it would be sacreligious to live in a church as her reason to go along with the demolition. Which is it? – SLP]
cb wrote:
“BTW City Hall is modelled after the Paris Hotel de Ville (City Hall).”
And outside of St. Louis, isn’t Paris one of the most Catholic cities on the planet? Well?
Just a hunch, but I bet in Paris they’re not demolishing historic churches to build vinyl- clad single family homes.
Steve notes:
[REPLY – I’m very confused. I wasn’t sure if I was attending a church meeting or a neighborhood meeting. One person spoke in favor of demolition because the buildings didn’t matter to God. Yet another said it would be sacreligious to live in a church as her reason to go along with the demolition. Which is it? – SLP]
How do these people come to these conclusions? Priestly advice?
What about the other closed Catholic churches?
They’re going into secular or other non-Cathoic uses.
The difference between St. Al’s and other closed churches would appear to be pastoral intervention, namely Father Bommarito acting as end-all voice for the now expanded St. Ambrose Parish that covers The Hill and Southwest Garden. Granted, all of the closed churches fall within a ward, where an alderman can be friend or foe to various developers. But in the case of St. Al’s, I’m now thinking you have a pastor acting as mini-mayor for his area, and a largely homogeneously Catholic constituency acting compliantly.
I attended last nightÂ’s meeting and I was glad to get all of the facts laid out on the table. Let me just say I think the Floyd Wright from the SWGNA did a great job of facilitating the meeting.
It was good to hear from actual residents of the neighborhood rather than just from outsiders who want to turn the church into condos because “other cities” were successful. To that point, this area can’t even really be compared to those kind of successes in Lafayette Square. It seemed NO ONE there was in favor of condos except Mr. Patterson.
It seemed the majority of people in attendance reluctantly approved of the development plan but are perhaps more comfortable after hearing from the developer. I think the developer now realizes that some of the recent property designs around the area are not going to work for the new development. He claims the new designs are going to be completely different and more in line with city landscapes. I think after some people made it clear they don’t want houses typically found Hillsboro and St. Charles as part of this development, let alone anywhere in the city, the developer’s new, improved designs will only continue evolve into something appropriate for the neighborhood, while also avoiding the cookie-cutter type look of repetitious housing that I believe exists in Botannical Heights.
I think it remains to be seen what will happen to the rectory and convent buildings. But again, it is the developerÂ’s property and if he gets a permit to demolish I would have no problem with him taking down those buildings as well. I believe clearing the whole site will give him a better chance of selling the lots and homes faster, which the neighboring residents wanted, as opposed to having these two buildings remain among the new construction.
Lastly, I agree with your point that the newsletter didnÂ’t do a great job of informing residents about what was happening with the pending development but I donÂ’t think it is the responsibility of the SWGNA to go door to door to tell people all the details. IÂ’m not sure what all these former parishioners and residents expected once the Archdiocese closed the Church.
[REPLY – A number of residents that I spoke to afterwards really didn’t object to condos. They realized condos would preserve the stunning urban setting while not creating any more units (aka traffic) than the single family houses. – SLP]
I was at the meeting last night and my favorite comment of evening was made by father Bommario when asked why the building was sold to wohlert for $600,000 when there was an offer for around $1,000,000. His response was that it was sold for “some reason”. If the archdiocese has so much money that doesn’t need to sell it’s property to the highest bidder then perhaps they shouldn’t pass around the collection basket every sunday. Something stinks here. I wish I could figure out who is getting greased up here.
No condos notes (emphasis mine):
“To that point, this area canÂ’t even really be compared to those kind of successes in Lafayette Square.”
So SWG is not good enough for condo conversion….
“I think after some people made it clear they don’t want houses typically found Hillsboro and St. Charles as part of this development, let alone anywhere in the city, the developer’s new, improved designs will only continue evolve into something appropriate for the neighborhood”
But is good enough to demand quality, urban infill designs…
“Lastly, I agree with your point that the newsletter didnÂ’t do a great job of informing residents about what was happening with the pending development but I donÂ’t think it is the responsibility of the SWGNA to go door to door to tell people all the details. IÂ’m not sure what all these former parishioners and residents expected once the Archdiocese closed the Church.”
The above is a pure head scratcher…
Is good information and open communication too much to expect, especially from a church and a city-funded neighborhood organization?
Almost forgot to mention, when comparing, say Lafayette Square to the Hill/SWG, let’s not forget the successful and high-dollar attached row houses that were built diagonally across the street from the Fair Mercantile building on Shaw Avenue on the Hill.
Those don’t look much different from the attached units on Steve’s mock up site plan.
RE: David Dwars – getting greased up?? It’s pretty obvious why they accepted Wohlert’s bid over Rothchild – they wanted the Church torn down, which Wohlert’s plan called for, while Rothchild’s called for it to be converted.
I am guessing if Rothchild’s intentions were to create all single family units their bid would have been accepted.
RE: quizical one – if you were at the meeting last night Floyd Wright made the point that if this was not a landlocked structure there would be no issue. If this property was on the corner of Southwest or across from the Fair Mercantile building on Shaw their wouldn’t be a problem putting condos there.
It’s not a problem of not being good enough, the property is just not in an ideal location for that type of development.
[REPLY – This just doesn’t make any sense at all. First, the site is 2.09 acres — an entire city block. What does land-locked have to do with anything when you’ve got that much land? Condos exist all over this city in structures that are too large to work as single family homes but too cherished to raze. – SLP]
Some people at the meeting last night were interested in attracting doctors and other professionals to the neighborhood, and nearly everyone chastised Wildwood-dwelling Wohlert for coming up with plans that were not urban enough.
Seems like condos in the church would be met with support.
But if you have heard lies from your alderman stating that Rothschild wanted to put in 20 units, that parking would be a nightmare and that the church would be “carved up” for redevelopment, you might be inclined to be skeptical.
A commonsense evaluation of the church building shows that it could house no more than four condos, and that’s really pushing the square footage smaller than most buyers expect. Three is probably a more reasonable number.
Doesn’t Wohlert want to put more units than that on the church footprint?
[REPLY – Based on my rough calculations the number of total units on the total 2.09 acres will be about the same if the existing buildings on the east are divided into condos and the west half is used for new construction. Same number of units, same amount of traffic. – SLP]
Rothschild doesn’t have the St. Ambrose connection. Wohlert, via the DiMartino family, does.
[REPLY – And Rothschild doesn’t have the Vollmer connection that Wohlert does! Here is a funny thing, Vollmer made a comment last night about nobody saying anything for the last “couple of years” that this has been in the works. Hmmmm. Couple of years? Funny, bids weren’t due on the sale until August 2005. Did it matter what anyone bid? – SLP]
Yikes, St. Al’s is sounding more and more like the Century fiasco each day, with favored developers getting exclusive development rights.
Though the closed churches did follow an “open” sale process, in the case of St. Al’s, the Archdiocese went with a very low bidder. In retrospect, the Archdiocese would have been more honest to have just not included St. Al’s among Linda Wash’s listings. For it now seems a powerful pastor already had connected developers in mind to influence Lindell’s decision.
Now, Vollmer has introduced a blighting bill (BB #361) to give away ten-year tax abatement for “Magnolia Square.” I guess it wasn’t good enough for the Church to hand away a $1.475 million listed property at a 60% dis-count, but now our City has to hand away potential property taxes too.
If the development proceeds as planned, I have a high degree of confidence that Paul Fendler can come up with appropriate single-family home designs that enhance the neighborhood. His office is located on the Hill and he has demonstrated a commitment to high quality design and development in the City’s historic neighborhoods. Many of his projects are adaptive reuse-type projects (lofts, two-family conversions, etc), so he has proven his ability to think creatively and work to preserve existing structures.
I am also confident that Urban Review StL will follow this project closely and hold Fendler and Associates accountable for the design.
That said, there is still time within the design process to revisit the option of saving some of the buildings on the site. I have been through plenty of review processes where major decisions were reconsidered at the governmental approval stage due to community pressure or economic realities. It’s definitely not too late, as long as the pressure is kept up and people don’t just assume that the decision is final.
1. Who was this Floyd Wright character? Is this a play on Frank Lloyd Wright?
2. I feel for Paul. He has done some good work in the city, and I am sure he has the best intentions, but in the end, we all need to eat, and if it pays the bills…
3. I will say it again- if the church isnt going to use the building Nobody will!
A catholic also told me once that its not about the building, its about sacrafice and praising god, and all that stuff. They could care less about the building. If this is so, then why are Catholic churches so grand? Also, why are there boards over the openings that used to hold stained glass? If the windows were not important, sell them like you did the buildings, or let them be torn down with the rest of it.
Floyd Wright is current SWGNA president, a long-term resident and an owner-occupied landlord within the eastern portion of Southwest Garden. Wright is best known outside the area for standing up to the Missouri Botanical Garden and stopping Peter Raven’s plans to tear down multiple blocks between I-44 and Shaw for expanded parking.
Though he’s not Catholic, I imagine Wright still wants to have a good working relationship with Vollmer, who represents the western half of Wright’s neighborhood. Yet while Wright respects Vollmer, Vollmer respects Bommarito, since his voting base is St. Ambrose parishioners, despite the 10th ward extending all the way to Morganford and Chippewa.
And while many residents volunteering numerous hours for SWGNA and related activities have fought for better development within their neighborhood, SWGNA’s grant funding is secured by their two aldermen, Conway and Vollmer. So, you might say that SWGNA faces a tough situation, if it were to disagree with its aldermen.