Changes to Dr. Martin Luther King Drive in the last year
Little along Dr. Martin Luther King Drive has changed since last year. Here is a look at the physical changes along the street that goes from downtown St. Louis to the city limits.
An auto-centric strip shopping center has opened. On-street parking now remains empty. Not an improvement.
The 3-story structure shown above was recently razed. It was located on the NW corner of MLK Drive and Arlington (map).
A couple blocks West a church has completed a new building. I like the massing, the glass, and the materials used. I don’t care for having a circle drive between the building and sidewalk.
If you are going to have such a drive this is the right way to do it, creating a planter to separate the circle drive from the sidewalk.
And at 18th & Dr. Martin Luther King Dr: a blank wall. Sorry, the color change doesn’t make it acceptable.
– Steve Patterson
steve, why was the building at MLK and Arlington razed? in that photo it looks like it's in perfect condition… replaced with a strip center? a parking lot?
Because that's what the OWNER chose to do?! In real estate, money talks. If you/me/us want to save the great old buildings along MLK (and elswhere in St. Louis), there are multiple opportunities to pick up some incredible values. But to expect that you can tell any and every property owner what is the right or wrong thing to do with their property is pretty presumptive if your money isn't involved.
is that directed at me? actually, i did'nt TELL anyone anything – I ASKED A QUESTION. if “because that's what the owner wanted to do” is the answer to my question, then that's what i was looking for (and, of course, i'm free to agree or disagree as i choose). if you were answering my question, then thanks for the info (though you should work on your delivery). if you were simply proselytizing, you failed.
Yeah, that's a gorgeous building. Shameful.
Thanks Steve, You have posted some nice snaps about Dr Martin Luther King. I can't understood what about the last snap.
Money talks and bullshit walks, isn't that the saying? The owner of a gun is not free to shoot people because he owns the gun. Free for all urban planning is not quite the same as shooting someone, but in some ways it is more deadly, infecting the whole society with a disease.
There is a lack of vision by city leadership. Even with this leadership void, building and land “owners” should not be allowed to do as they wish with historic buildings like the one that was on MLK and Arlington. Nor is vacant land a free for all.
What happens to a site effects the surrounding community and the region. It is a voice of citizen concern. Buildings such as Arlington should not be coming down without good reason. If replaced, any replacement building should be scrutinized and fit into a public vision of what the city is and will be.
That is not happening, thus the leadership vacuum.
So put your money where your mouth is. Buy some worthy vacant building along MLK, renovate it (or not), and find some tenants to lease the space. Invest what you believe in! “Money talks and bullshit walks!”
Believe it or I not, I agree that “free for all urban planning” is NOT the solution. But there's a big difference between an achievable vision and an idealistic-yet-unattainable one. The heavy hand of government CAN say “No, you can't tear down any building that is ______ (fill in the blank).” The real world outcome will be a) actual preservation and renovation, b) preservation without renovation (essentially warehousing the property until the market [hopefully] improves) OR c) demolition through neglect (at some point, protecting the public safety WILL require demolition).
It all boils down to the dollars and cents of real estate investment. Ultimately, if an owner decides that a structure is no longer economically viable, they will no longer invest in its maintenance. There are limited remedies that the city can try, up to and including taking over the property, but the city hasn't had much more success than the private sector in actually saving structures like the one at MLK & Arlington – in simple terms, we, as a city, have to decide whether putting a new roof on a crumbling, vacant building is more important than repaving the street out front. We simply don't have unlimited resources, and we can't save every old building.
The city is using building code ordinance violations, and housing court to systematicly turn the city into a vacant lot.
The West is full of ghost towns where people left after the mines closed. Detroit, East St. Louis, Granite City, Wellston and many others are following a similar path, becoming urban ghost towns, after the factories close. Chicago and Pittsburgh continue to reinvent themselves, replacing factories and heavy industry with new economies. “It's the economy, stupid.” We have a choice. If we want to “save” the city and our old buildings, we need to give people the right reasons to be here, to invest here, to live here. And if fewer and fewer people are willing to make that choice, then yes, we'll continue “to systematicly turn the city into a vacant lot.”
Laissez-faire attitudes toward property & community will guarantee the area will never rebound. Why would I invest in saving a building if I know the next door neighbor can raze his and just leave it vacant? The Libertarian viewpoint has no place in rebuilding an inner-city street. None!
I'm not sure if we're agreeing, or not? Are you in the “half a loaf” camp, that some reinvestment is better than none? Or, are you in the “all or nothing” camp, that a boarded-up building or a vacant lot is better than the strip shopping center in the first photo?
While I lean libertarian, I'm not an absolutist. I'm a realist, I accept that government needs to play a role in defining an urban (or suburban or rural) vision. But I'm also a pragmatist, and accept that there is a moving $ line that divides projects from happening and not happening. I believe in trends and momentum, and that investors and tenants will spend whatever is necessary to be someplace they want to be. They will also spend only what is minimally necessary to be in marginal locations, and will avoid any location where profits appear to be elusive or non-existent.
MLK is a case of “great bones” and some remarkable architectural opportunities. It's also a classic case of that old real estate axiom of “location, location, location”. The good news is that there is some reinvestment happening, even in this market; the bad news is that there needs to be a lot more. The challenge is balancing the desire for better design with scaring away reinvestment completely . . .
I'm all or nothing. The anti-urban bits here & there has been tried for decades, it doesn't work long term. Government policy make MLK a bad location and it will take stronger government intervention and investment to reverse it. No urbanist is going to renovate the remaining urban buildings surrounded by strip centers and huge gas stations. It just won't happen. So the buy it and fix it argument falls completely flat with me — not even remotely realistic. Strong urban policy/vision for the street along with the return of a streetcar and you'd see investment in the buildings and new urban construction. That is the reality I know.
It's not the economy; you clearly state that other cities are able to reinvent themselves despite economic conditions.
I was born here, so perhaps you really touched the truth, stupid people? Cities ain't just brick, cities are defined by the people living there. Look closely at how we are living. Stupid is; what stupid does. Stupid people justify destroying historic,architecturally stunning, irreplaceable structures for any old stupid reason.
Vacant lots all around, ain't smart.
Now that you have discovered the root of the problem, let's work on the solution!
Look at the result of these housing code ordinances, they alone have armed shortsighted leaders with the legislative ammunition to systematicly chase resident property owners out.
However, big rich white developers from the county(Paul McKee) are exempt from these ordinances. Years of deliberate disregard and neglect is rewarded with millions in tax credits and government support. “You can't rush the market”, is an acceptable answer to the city, from this McKee fellow. He is above these laws. Meanwhile housing court is in session every week, the city is vigorously prosecuting it's citizens. Ordinance enforcement is harsh for us, five hundred dollars per violation and thirty days in the workhouse (that's jail time). I dare you to give McKee's answer as your defense to the City's housing judge.
Do smart people allow these laws to go unchanged?
I think what is being missed is that good urban design can attract investment. This includes transit of course, the wallflower in this discussion.
JZ, St. Louis and much of America has done it your way for years, for at least six or more decades. “Anything goes” capitalism has been the benchmark for the failure of St. Louis as a region. Instead of a Paris on the Mississippi we have a wounded river city.
The heavy hand of government is not even close to being the issue when dealing with urban planning. Corporate sponsors of government buy what they wish anyway.
The reality is St. Louis has failed in many, many ways, the population decline alone is evidence, although there is many other undeniable signs of failure.
Not there hasn't been successes, but the failures win, and continue to win.
Until there is a true city wide leadership in place to address urban issues in a comprehensive and effective manner the “anything goes, free for all planning methods” will continue, and they do continue.
By the way, not that it matters, but I invested money in rehabbed structures and new buildings, also have volunteered and worked for years in neighborhoods along this very stretch of MLK. Your pompous declaration that I should invest money is makes it clear that you do not understand what I am saying.
Good design attracts investment, government policy is the canvas of that good design.
It is especially ironic since every podunk production that comes to town is proclaimed to bring X millions of dollars to St. Louis. The understanding of the impact of urban policy is so low that the news stations and even architects and government officials do not realize sound urban policy is far more financially important to the region than any quick visit by an organization or sporting event.
Unfortunately since money not only buys land, but also government we continue to suffer under shortsighted and even delusional policies.
Very well said!
Kudos for “putting your money where your mouth is”. The one thing find interesting is your take that government is totally tone deaf when it comes to urban design issues, and that “money not only buys land, but also government”. Government, at its core, is supposed to represent the wills of its constituents. If this isn't happening, then why the heck are all these people continuing to be reelected?! We have a significant design community in the St. Louis region, yet it seems to be having little direct impact at the local level
I had a couple of things to comment on – 1) Steve, it isn't like you to disparage a feature of a building that is intended to help people with limited mobility: the circle drive in front of the Friendly Temple is for drop-off of elderly and disabled congregants, so they can walk in the front door (not a side or back door) without steps and impediments. The building is tall enough that the set-back with the drive doesn't hurt the urban fabric of the street and the drive provides an essential function. 2) you should look into that new strip mall at Sarah – it's an incubator called Habitat for Neighborhood Business that helps urban entrepreneurs open up retail businesses in areas that are grossly underserved by retail … it might be a strip mall, but it's a really good thing for the neighborhood.
The circle drive presents two conflict points where motorists cross the sidewalk. Had the building been pulled up to the property line those exiting cars from an on-street drop-off zone would have been just as close to the entrance. I'm aware of the noble cause behind the strip center but it is still a strip center. Overall it is a negative for the neighborhood.
The design looks like the convention center driveway on Washington Avenue downtown. It's grand on purpose. It conveys the development rights status that the Friendly Temple has with the city. The alderman, Jeffery Boyd has been instumental and extremely cooperative with whatever plans they present. The question is how friendly has their plans been to current and previous property owners.
Wake-up Cady! You call that good? Yeah, good ground clearing. Good way to justify disspossesing previous land owners. Good to come in with the “F” word—Financing. With the” wow” cost of building that spot, the rents for space must be” in the sky” expesive, unless of course, there is a subsidy. Oh, nothing good happens in the city without a good subsidy! Good union job wages paid to many good people outside of the hood. Good to know Saint Louis U is involved, with their connections I'm sure they will find some good people from out of town to start some business there. Good luck.
Look at a grassroots creation of a entrepreneurial incubation center at Chouteau and Boyle. Compare the difference. Hometown boys have ownership and work/job training happens there. We proudly display the Billekin and the Wash U bear. However, a big developer, Restoration STL has moved in across the street with a fifty million dollar investment. The city is very partial to the “F” word. City goverment support for local youth, homegrown projects, community involvment, and economic education or empowerment are routinely pushed aside for big cash developers. Wake-up Cady and watch the city working hard at selling us out!
The MLK incubator was largely (or completely) privately funded.
Are you saying the rents will be market rate? Will there be any realistic conection between the cost of the project and the cost of the rents? At STL B school I was taught to consider these basic cost as a major factor for business start-up.
We know that Universities have great not for profit tax status and great cash reserves. When they spend on projects like this it can easily be considered a teaching tool (their business) and a community service project and pehaps should be.
I double dog dare you to adress the other issues I mentioned.
Rents will be significantly below market rate. The mission of the non-profit is to help start up business. This non-profit has close connections to the Cook School of Business at Saint Louis University. I don't have enough facts to comment on the others issues you raised.
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.