Today; Protest & March Over Midtown Demolitions
You are invited to participate in a protest and march today, July 17th. The press release says it best:
Contact: Anthony Coffin
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: 314-498-0483Email: cowpuppyproductions@hotmail.com
Date: July 17th
A RALLY IN RESPONSE TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE LOCUST STREET LIVERY STABLE The Disconnection of the Locust Business District from Grand Center
On Thursday July 19th at 5:30pm there will be a rally protesting St Louis University’s continuing demolition of historic structures. The rally will take place at the intersection of Locust St and Josephine Baker Blvd. [map]. At approximately 6:00pm we will march from the remains of the livery stable to the soon to be demolished mansion at 3740 Lindell. Specifically, we are opposing the current demolition and any future demolitions that will further disconnect the Locust business district from Grand Center. At the same time we would like to promote the adaptive reuse of all historic structures in Midtown.
To the east of Josephine Baker, Locust has undergone an amazing transformation in the last several years with almost every building undergoing renovation with beautiful facade restorations, and they are being filled with creative firms, offices, restaurants, etc. The block between Josephine Baker and Theresa however is quite desolate. The Drake Plaza while beautiful has no storefronts or offices facing Locust. Around the corner on Theresa however, is the new Moto Museum and west of that on Olive, the recently completed Centene Center for the Arts and the Metropolitan is undergoing renovation into a hotel and retail. The livery stable, along with other surrounding buildings, held a key ingredient to tying the Locust Street corridor with Grand Center to the west.
Directly across Josephine Baker from the livery stable, SLU owns two more buildings that may be threatened with demolition. 3331, and 3327 Locust are buildings that if rehabbed could lessen the negative impact of a parking lot on the site of the livery stable. If these buildings are razed the result will be even greater disconnectedness in midtown and a slap in the face to the pioneers of Locust street.
As buildings such as the former Woolworth (see post) get new investment other buildings get taken out for increasingly large parking areas. While areas do evolve and change over time I believe it is important for us to voice exactly how it is these areas change. I share the concern about how the emerging Locust Business District is being separated from the activity on Grand, a disservice to both areas.
Above, Saint Louis University owns all but two buildings in the above picture (beige and 2-story to the right). If SLU razes their buildings for additional parking it will destroy the wonderful character of this block.
The old livery building just prior to demolition. It once concealed surface parking behind, now fully exposed to the area. For my earlier take on the livery and the buildings along Locust click here.
Above, next on the chopping block at St. Louis University. The march will end at this building.
Are there any co-sponsors for this rally? We know the physical context of the area. What about the social, economic, organizational, and political context? Does the alderman support the demolition? What about the Locust Business District? Neighbors? SLU benefactors? Other developers? There’s a lot more to this story than neat looking buildings…
Message to the organizer: If you’d like to be taken seriously I suggest you find a betteer email address than cowpuppyproductions.
Here’s a narrative, coming to a corner coffee house near you…
Youthful activists pissed at SLU’s practices…
Others pissed at TIF funds for SLU’s Chaifetz Arena…
Activists frustrated as other “built environment” organizations fail to sign on to their protests.
Some eventually decide it’s better to leave STL, the “hopeless case”, asking themselves, “Why become cynical?”
Elsewhere, others thrilled at widespread reinventing of SLU’s midtown presence.
Demographic guess: There’s probably one hundred St. Louis area person in the “Go-SLU!” category for every activist in the preservation group.
If Aldermen want to support historic buildings then they should put their Wards in preservation review. McMillan removed his Ward while Marlene Davis has not put it back under review. Given the quality of buildings and their historical context, they should be under review.
And I encourage everyone to come to the protest. It will be your chance to voice your opposition.
Doug,
Let’s see, McMillan removed the preservation review status, and Marlene has not restored it. And you’re saying “If Aldermen want to support historic buildings then they should put their Wards in preservation review.”
This is all very confusing. Are you suggesting McMillan and Davis are trying to find a way to prevent these demolitions?
I think we can now agree that SLU really doesn’t care about midtown or the city. I’ve always hated that SLU acts as if it is the savior of midtown when it has just taken over large sections of it for itself. It wouldn’t surprise me if SLU doesn’t really want midtown to come back. As long as midtown is struggling they will be able to control it, hold back land values, and continue to expand the campus. SLU wants midtown for itself and will not share. The only parts that will be renovated are the parts that are visible from the campus. Everything else will not be since they tell their students not to go there anyway. Grand Center will never be a functioning neighborhood, and it will only look good enough to put on their brochures.
So is the protest today or on July 17, which would be two days ago?
^July 17th is just when the press release was issued. If you read further you will see the event date is July 19th.
Progressive,
For clarification I am saying that if Aldermen value historic buildings then they should have their ward under preservation review so that owners must show cause in order for demolition to occur. The livery stable demolition probably wouldn’t have been allowed had the ward been under review.
Since Marlene Davis has not put the ward under review, or done anything else to prevent the demolition, then by her inaction she supports the demolition. Aldermen are, after all, the “end all” when it comes to development in their given ward.
Doug, then aren’t you protesting against the wrong party? Shouldn’t your protest be aimed at Alderman Marlene Davis? It’s the policy you oppose, correct? SLU doesn’t set policy; the city does. You should be marching on St. Louis City Hall, not SLU’s campus. You have no standing at SLU.
This issue provides an excellent microcosm of St. Louis. I appreciate the architecture, but I find the dynamics between various individuals and organizations much more interesting.
Both protesting SLU and lobbying Marlene Davis to place her ward under preservation review are equally worthwhile efforts. SLU’s institutional political power no doubt would be a factor in determining whether the 19th ward would be under preservation review. Given Biondi’s actions, it would be correct to presuppose that he would be against preservation review.
“demolition” wrote:
“Doug, then aren’t you protesting against the wrong party? Shouldn’t your protest be aimed at Alderman Marlene Davis? It’s the policy you oppose, correct? SLU doesn’t set policy; the city does. You should be marching on St. Louis City Hall, not SLU’s campus. You have no standing at SLU.”
One could also state that SLU has no right to destroy the Locust Street building canyon, a cultural resource and a public treasure.
Just sayin’
What inherent right does the public have to a Locust Street “building canyon”?
If the city approves the demolition, isn’t that the end of it? The city (nay, we…) have spoken.
Again, it seems the controversy is over the city’s policy toward demolition. SLU is adhering to city policy.
A question regarding the role of Alderman Marlene Davis…Since she is a very new alderman, how much is her policy on this matter driven by the previous involvement of her predecessor, former Alderman McMillan? Is it possible this deal was cut long before Davis entered office? Or perhaps, given the lack of preservation review, isn’t it even more likely that McMillan and now Davis are maintaining a hands-off policy regarding demolition reviews? Since Davis was overwhelmingly elected alderman, while her predecessor McMillan was one of the city’s most popular alderman, and is now often mentioned as a possible future mayor, we can only surmise that the policy moves of these elected officials have wide public support.
“Again, it seems the controversy is over the city’s policy toward demolition. SLU is adhering to city policy.”
Well, yes, the larger point is that city policy in Ward 19 is failing to protect important historic buildings. The smaller point is that SLU should have made a better decision in the absence of the force of law.
Without the preservation review process to work within, citizens are left with the option of persuasion. That is what people have done as they tried to persuade SLU leaders to halt the demolition. The persuasion did not work, but SLU owns other historic buildings that are also not covered by preservation review.
Organizers of this protest are really thinking ahead to the next time SLU may contemplate demolition. They will need to have gotten an earlier start on building their case — this is more proactive than reactive. No one is arguing that the livery stable be rebuilt, or SLU punished for its demolition.
“The city (nay, we…) have spoken.”
i’ll repeat what i said in the downtown mall thread as it also seems pertinent here:
the “city” does not necessarily represent the voters on every issue. that’s why the city charter allows for Initiative and Referendum.
and sorry, but SLU is too morally enlightened (gag) to use the old “just adhering to city policy” rationale.
SLU, like other institutions, has a moral obligation to develop and expand in a responsible and sustainable manner.
By demolishing historic buildings that have stood for up to 130 years and replacing them with buildings built on a 30 year depreciation scale, they are actually making the city a far worse place as the new buildings will look like crap in 30 years (like King Louis Square which looked like crap immediately after construction had been completed).
Of course parking lots always look like crap. SLU has a massive resource of old historic buildings at their disposal – a huge asset, yet they flush them down the toilet.
Do kids want to come to downtown St. Louis to go to a school in paper buildings? – they can go to St. Charles Community College and get that (sorry SCCC).
Hey Becker, how about boringassstiffcompany@hotmail.com ?
That should move some merchandise!
Is the Livery Stable being demolished for Chaifetz parking? Why is the Lindell Mansion coming down?
What some may view as important historic preservation may be in conflict with SLU’s priorities. Has anyone spoken with SLU officials about what their plans are?
If anything has proven to sustainable in Midtown – or this City – it’s St. Louis University. SLU is one of this city’s most venerable institutions. Look at all the historic buildings they keep operating! Many of the city’s most beautiful buildings belong to SLU. It’s ironic that they are being portrayed as destroying our historic assets. For the most part, they are sustaining them!
If I am correct, they wanted to demolish the Coronado Hotel at one point.
There are some in this community who believe the city would have been better off had SLU moved out to the suburbs years ago. They think we’d have been better off without the closed streets, soccer fields, secured campus, etc. They are probably the same people who would have rather seen BJC move its hospital out to O’Chesterfield rather than leasing a sliver of forgotten Forest Park for a half million per year…
urban – the forest park giveaway went to Paul McKee who is on the board at BJC and also is the infamous Blairmount land-tax-grabber
Should we give all of our beautiful parks to buisnesses to bribe them to stay? – nonsense !
tge peep, the BJC Forest Park lease was hardly a giveaway in that it was:
1. a long-term lease, not a sale.
2. costly in terms of actual dollars – $2 million from BJC to the City for city park maintenance + lease payments of around $500,000 per year.
Also, what is the highest and best use for that little corner square of Forest Park (aka Humboldt Park)? BJC already had a parking garage underneath it. If you’re the City of St. Louis and you can get $500K per year for that little bit of land, not to mention the increased tax revenue from the property taxes on the new building, plus the income tax on new employees that come to work at BJC, then it’s a big win for the City, which is very strapped for cash.
It wasn’t a bribe, it was a sensible deal for all parties involved.
But let’s stay on topic: Midtown is much better off because of SLU’s presence. Like Biondi or not, he’s done a lot of good things for that part of the City. Now, I don’t think the highest and best use for this old livery stable is as a parking lot; especially not on the long term. But does anyone else have any ideas as to what would be?
well, a building instead of a parking lot for starters. oops, too late …
Well I am guessing its cancelled due to weather. I just got back from there was no one there.
i’m not sure i see that it is a cut and dry, black and white situation:
“how dare you challenge SLU,” OR “I wish SLU would not be here.”
rather I think it’s important to challenge these important institutions in complicated situations like this…
“Samuel on 19 Jul 2007 at 5:26 pm
Well I am guessing its cancelled due to weather. I just got back from there was no one there.”
Samuel, the protest was at 5:30 and you posted your comment at 5:26 having returned from the livery stable’s graveyard…I’m guessing you were early?
1. Buying the loyalty of corporate citizens is futile at best. BJC is moving operations to West County despite the deal. see the Business Journal, March 23. JZ has spoken to this at length.
2. Challenging an institution that states as part of its mission: (SLU) “Maintains and encourages programs which link the University and its resources to its local, national, and international communities” while it turns the surrounding area into parking lots seems valid to me. Contrary to what society has been conditioned to think over the last 27 years, questioning or critiquing is not a disloyal act. Few City residents wish SLU, WashU, or BJC would leave–but we would like them to be better neighbors, not just richer ones.
3. So long as the status quo stands, the highest and best use of the livery stable (& the Century Building) is a parking lot, and of parkland is a hospital building–because that is what our corporate citizens want them to be.
Several of us assembled at the sight this evening but the sustained downpour caused us to to head to a local watering hole for beers. Most of the signs we had made were not made to get wet. After being rained out twice now, we will hopefully reschedule and make this happen on a dry evening. Will keep everyone informed of a date. Thanks for the post.
Last night, I drove by the site of the old Livery Stable. The funny thing was, 80% of the site was already a huge surface parking lot. The building was surrounded by a sea of surface parking. Now its fully a cleared site. Not much difference. Individuals protesting are effective at one level. When respected organizations stand in support, the impact of protests rises to a much higher level. As long as protesters are kept weak in loosely organized groups, their impact will be little felt and efforts unsustainable. It takes a lot more work to get the backing of respected organizations. Maybe not as cool, but comes with a lot more power. One need only ask, where’s the AIA? Where’s the Sierra Club? Where are the partners? Given the lack of support or a coalition around this issue, casual observers can only conclude that there is minimal concern.
3. So long as the status quo stands, the highest and best use of the livery stable (& the Century Building) is a parking lot, and of parkland is a hospital building–because that is what our corporate citizens want them to be.
Disagree. Most St. Louis residents are highly pleased with the BJC/City Lease deal. From north to south city, everyone thinks the city got a good deal. And given our totally ad hoc system of doing things, there’s little to be concerned about regarding setting a precedent. Why? Just a few years earlier, the city shot down Alderman Bosley’s effort to build a Walgreens in Fairground Park because of the historic significance of the threatened Bear Pits.
LisaS > “1. Buying the loyalty of corporate citizens is futile at best. BJC is moving operations to West County despite the deal. see the Business Journal, March 23. JZ has spoken to this at length.”
This implies that BJC is pulling up and out of the city which is just plain wrong. In the article cited, BJC is merely stating that due to the closing of I-64 they will need to change and move some operations. This has nothing to do with a lack of loyalty.
Chicken little nonsense.
“Most St. Louis residents are highly pleased with the BJC/City Lease deal. From north to south city, everyone thinks the city got a good deal.”
Most? everyone? evidence?
When you talk to people from diverse neighborhoods across the city, at neighborhood meetings, cocktail parties, and political events, and everyone you meet says the same thing: they like the deal, that’s a good indication of wide support. Where’s the opposition? And don’t say the people who signed the “Save Our Parks” petition. Most people signing the petition had no understanding of the proposed lease deal. The paid signature gatherers made it sound like a no-brainer, “save our parks”. Uh, okay, where do I sign?
“When you talk to people from diverse neighborhoods across the city, at neighborhood meetings, cocktail parties, and political events, and everyone you meet says the same thing …”
wow, such diversity. a few people at neighborhood meetings, cocktail parties, and political events surely must represent the majority of saint louisans.
“Most people signing the petition had no understanding of the proposed lease deal.”
sounds pretty general … got any evidence?
The evidence is obvious: the BJC lease deal was not any part of the referendum petition. And Adam, if you think people signing petitions are generally knowledgeable about the issues, you need to go back to civics class.
I don’t believe a majority vote of the citizens is the issue. It doesn’t matter what most people want, what matters is what is best for the city in the long term. Is the BJC deal a good idea? I honestly can’t say. It’s a complex issue and I don’t know enough details. Is tearing down viable historic architecture for a surface level parking lot a good idea in the long term? I would say this is never a good idea. Viable architecture needs to be reused. It is costly to rebuild from scratch, and all the money in the world can’t buy the character of 100+ yr old buildings. Urban neighborhoods need buildings if they are ever to thrive. Surface parking never belongs in an urban environment. If there is a dire need for parking, a thoughtfully planned garage with first floor retail should be built, preferably in an already vacant lot.
“Last night, I drove by the site of the old Livery Stable. The funny thing was, 80% of the site was already a huge surface parking lot. The building was surrounded by a sea of surface parking. Now its fully a cleared site. Not much difference.”
SLU demolished the adjacent parcels only a couple months ago. SLU made the difference.
Correct, SLU has already demolished most of that adjacent block. Going from a viable 130 year old building that multiple INVESTORS wanted, and tried to buy – to a parking lot – IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE! Wake UP folks! SLU should not be patted on their back for saving a hand-full of buildings on their innner-campus while they destroy the rest of the surrounding area.
plan, 2 million dollars is a JOKE OF A RATE for that piece of property at Kingshighway and I-64 – is was a true giveaway and sets horrible precedent for future giveaways of city parks to business owners
Adam,
Everyone I talk to rallied against the forest park giveaway because it involved giving away a city park.
Who are these mysterious supporters? Where do they live?
If we give away all of the parks in a city known for parks, then we will have no more parks, only parking lots.
whoops not Adam I mean zealot.
Zealot you would favor a walgreens in Fairgrounds Park ?, for real ? sober ?
“The evidence is obvious: the BJC lease deal was not any part of the referendum petition.”
not true. the referendum put the selling of public parks in the hands of saint louis citizens. the area in question is a public park.
“And Adam, if you think people signing petitions are generally knowledgeable about the issues, you need to go back to civics class.”
and perhaps you need a refresher course in statistics.
The protest will be next Thursday. An official press release will come out Monday at the latest.
Adam,
Recall that a majority of the Board of Aldermen supported the project, led by 17th ward Alderman, Joe Roddy, whose ward included the proposed lease site.
Alderman respond to their constituents. You wouldn’t have most aldermen supporting the plan if most residents opposed it.
Let’s hear your summary of the demographic opposed to the deal. And to TGEPeep, most residents opposed the Walgreen’s/Fairgrounds Park deal. The plan didn’t have the legs to generate community wide support.
The BJC/Forest Park lease did. And it got done. As a heavily taxed city resident, I am glad the city leaders worked out this deal. It was a no-brainer.
Let’s be clear…the Walgreen’s/Fairground Park lease deal didn’t have the legs to generate community support beyond the Third Ward. That’s why it failed. People rallied in favor of the BJC lease deal; they ran from the Walgreen’s deal. St. Louisans are not stupid.
“Recall that a majority of the Board of Aldermen supported the project …”
– aldermanic courtesy.
“Alderman respond to their constituents.”
– not always true.
“Let’s hear your summary of the demographic opposed to the deal.”
– where’s yours? take another look at my posts and you’ll notice i’m not the one making making unsubstantiated generalizations. just show us some numbers to support your claims that “Most St. Louis residents are highly pleased with the BJC/City Lease deal” and “Most people signing the petition had no understanding of the proposed lease deal.â€