I think you touched on one key point, but only in passing – the real issue here is sprawl.  Since the industrial uses surrounding SLU’s campus are rapidly disappearing, there’s a large amount of land available for relatively low cost.  Land values are the biggest drivers in creating urban densities and “urban buildings” – it simply makes little economic sense to use expensive land for surface parking or empty grassy areas.  SLU is taking full advantage of depressed real estate values to significantly expand their physical footprint.  And, with more land available, there’s little reason to build up when they can build out.  UMSL isn’t much different; the only difference is they started with a golf course instead of a 19th century urban area.

SLU made an economic analysis before they decided to purchase this building, apparently fully intending to tear it down.  This happened with few real constraints.  SLU has to assume that the existing zoning was appropriate for what they want to do, or that it can be easily changed.  SLU has to assume that there would be few obstacles to demolishing the structure.  Both are tools that can be used to guide development, but only if they’re applied.  If the “city” (Planning Dept, Mayor, Aldermen) isn’t willing to demand a master plan and to hold an institution to it, we’re going to continue to see development like this happening in a vacuum.

The real issue here is not so much SLU as the rest of us.  Pevely moved out, leaving the complex vacant.  The loft developer couldn’t make the numbers work.  If someone, anyone had truly wanted to “save” the buildings, to put them to a new use(s), they could have offered more than SLU was willing to pay.  Was SLU motivated?  Absolutely.  But they’re also not crazy, there’s some number that would’ve been too much, even for them.

And part of the challenge is that this is an industrial complex.  History is relative.  Taking the description and editing it, some of the absurdity becomes apparent:  “the milk plant’s architecture is primarily functional rather than artistic. . . . The adjacent parking lot and a lot between the milk plant and garage have historically served as open parking and loading space, and are included in the boundary. Though three of the Pevely structures have burned since the period of significance, the factory as a whole retains the industrial structures primarily associated with the company.”  The same could’ve been said of the Chrysler and Ford plants, both recently demolished, and of the Colgate plant, on the north side -were/are any of these considered to be “historic”?

Factory buildings are tools, designed to be modified as manufacturing processes evolve or to be removed when they’ve outlived their original purpose or useful life.  The same can be said of fast food restaurants or big box stores or enclosed shopping malls.  Yes, they all have a history, and yes, they all add to the context in which they’re placed.  But to argue that something built in the 1920′s is somehow better / more sacred than something built in the 1940′s or 1960′s is both arbitrary and absurd.  The real issue isn’t that this building is old, it’s the fear that whatever replaces it will be less to “our” liking.  Using history to be the taste police misses the point and is a crude tool.  What’s really needed are form-based zoning requirements and rigorous, citizen-based design review IF we as a city want to impose that level of government control over private land owners.

Because it’s within the apparently ever-expanding boundaries of the SLU campus(es) / universe.  And, as a former realtor, you know’s all about location, location, location.                                                                                                                                

Obviously, SLU / Fr. Biondi has a grand vision / masterplan.  Does the city know what it is?  The neighbors?  Those in the preservation community?  I doubt that we all agree, but if we knew, we might be more at peace.

I said it before, big institutions have an edifice complex, they like to build things.  One big reason is that it’s always easier to get a fat cat donor to write a big check for a new building than it is to get them to pay to maintain or renovate an older one.

You can’t replicate the urban fabric of 100 years ago with 50% fewer people. Density requires lots of people and it’s pretty important that those people have jobs. Today’s job environment reflects office work over industrial processes.  The Pevely building isn’t unsightly, but neither is it truly historic.  Buildings like Pevely Dairy dot the South of Market (SOMA) landscape in San Francisco; many have been turned into office lofts and they currently house many of the Web 2.0 and social networking startup companies. Most of the startup activity in the Bay Area today is in SOMA, not down in the suburban office park sprawl of Silicon Valley. SLU’s vision for the area, even in the absence of a master plan, obviously reflects a significant medical complex. If greater St. Louis had invested all the funds blown on TIF for retail buildings into true venture capital, the demand for buildings like Pevely would be sufficient to fund the redployment of these assets into a 2nd useful life.  

Eddie,
perhaps you are earnest or perhaps you are completely blinded by an alliegance to SLU.  Anyway, you are way off base on historic preservation.  Yes, a grouping of similar buildings can add to historical importance in some contexts; conversely, so too can the fact that a building is of a relatively rare existing type.  (We might as well tear down the Compton Water Tower as there are only three left in the city!)  Also, I completely disagree with you on the future viability of the building as mixed use/residential with an improved economy…. even north facing units would have an exceptional view.  And practically every established univeristy in America has increased enrollment in the past few decades, including urban campuses that have embraced the urban context.  

Related – SLU recently installed a couple of directional billboards in the middle of Grand Avenue in the blocks just south of here.  If you want to talk about an affront to urban design sensibilities, these certainly need to rank up there . . . .

Like I’ve said before, I like the building, my goal is not to see it torn down.  It has some great details on the Grand side.  And I’m sure that the Yackey plan would’ve improved the north side.  But it’s still just a plan, not reality.  And much like Steelcote building, nearby, or the vacant factory on Chippewa behind the QuikTrip, it’s hard to put together a residential project in the middle of a non-residential area, no matter how well the building would work.  My fundamental concern is balancing the desire to save every cool old building with the reality that we’re having a hard time filling them.  My goal isn’t to see the Pevely complex go away, my goal is to see the city continue to come back, economically. 

This story is a painfully apt anecdote both for why I bear little allegiance to my alma mater.

Beyond historic preservation questions, the Pevely Building is a supporting urban structure; it is conductive to a walking and a transit environment. If you look across Grand, at the Doisy Building, while perhaps attractive enough, it is an urban design nightmare with its massive open space surrounding the main structure.
The main, absolute major, progammatic function of the site at Grand and Chouteau is acting as a major transit collection point and intersection. I want to hear the arguments saying this is wrong. Planning on this site requires buildings, transit and urban planning that support the idea of a major transit intersection with supporting physical structures.
The city should be demanding this approach. Beyond that it is the in the interest of SLU to embrace a more sustainable form of development. It supports their student and working population in much greater depth than most urban universities are able to do accomplish, including their neighbor Washington U.
Tearing down the Pevely Building is against SLU’s best interest, that is the ultimate irony. But the City of St. Louis leads in the failure. Instead we have a brain dead government more intent on collecting salaries and pensions than in doing something meaningful.
Ultimately the Chouteau/Grand transit node should be connected with the transit node of Grand at Lindell, supporting SLU and Grand Center. There is additional poorly utilized SLU land at this intersection.
Once the viability of these nodes along with light rail is established, then progress can begin and capitalism can flourish.

If this is truly a walkable area, why are there rarely any pedestrians around?  Saturday’s protest, with a couple dozen picketers, is likely the largest number of pedestrians that this corner has seen in decades!

You perception is “there are rarely any pedestrians around” but the reality is there were more than we thought. But SLU’s actions have certainly reduced the possibility of more as well as the Grand viaduct being out, The 1-2 minutes when you drive by you may not see a pedestrian in most of the city but spend two hours there and you will see many pedestrians coming and going.

You want parkland? Visit the many great public parks that our city has alreay to offer. I’ve seen approximately .0000563 people in the ‘parkland’ created by SLU around the Doisy building, where viable, occupiable buildings should instead be reinforcing the edges of this important corridor, and not eroding them. 

Moe, of course some parkland for SLU can be a good thing, but it is a matter of design, location, and spirit.  SLU shouldn’t use unpeopled green space as a firewall against the surrounding community.  The edges, and particularly key intersections, should relate well to the urban form and be conductors of people and activity.  Interior parkland on campus is one thing, and some urban campuses successfully have this but with the surrounding city engaged.  For whatever reason(s), SLU does not do this.