Planning Commission To Hear Appeal On Denial Of Permit To Raze Historic Pevely Dairy (Update w/Agenda)
I have a note on my calendar that the St. Louis Planning Commission will hear an appeal of the Preservation Board’s decision in December 2011 to uphold the staff denial of Saint Louis University’s demolition requet for the historic Pevely Dairy at Grand & Chouteau tomorrow. Yesterday I tried to confirm this but was unable to do so online.
All I got was two links to an agenda from March 2011 — neither of which worked. Frustrating! The main page gave me some general information on the Planning Commission:
The thirteen-member Planning Commission adopts and amends the comprehensive Strategic Land Use Plan and General Land Use Plan for the City of St. Louis.
The Commission adopts zoning ordinances and makes decisions on some variance and all rezoning petitions, thereby guiding the development and redevelopment of the City. It also renews blighting studies and redevelopment plans and provides recommendations to the Board of Aldermen.
The Planning Commission consists of thirteen members. The following city officials are members: The President of the Board of Public Service and the Chairs of the Transportation and Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committees of the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor, Comptroller and President of the Board of Aldermen each designate one member. The Mayor appoints the seven remaining members (“citizen membersâ€).
The directors of the Departments of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, Public Safety, Public Utilities and Streets serve as advisors to the Commission.
I emailed a couple of people and confirmed the Planning Commission will indeed hear an appeal to raze the Pevely Dairy at their meeting tomorrow:
The Planning Commission meets the first Wednesday of every month at 5:30 P.M. Meetings are held at the Planning & Urban Design Agency office located at 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200 and are open to the public unless otherwise posted.
Hopefully the room will be packed with people supportive of the Preservation Board’s decision.
I’ll be at the meeting, will you? Update: view the agenda here.
– Steve Patterson
Sorry, I don’t support you on this one. A building’s advanced age does not automatically qualify it for preservation. This building, in my opinion, has lived-out (not outlived) its intended use, and the property will be better used for a modern structure specifically designed for the new property owner. Drive up and down Washington (especially west of 18th) and in several locations in and around CWE and you see similar buildings currently developed as lofts/offices/warehouses. The Pevely building is not unique (like the saucer building on Grand), and so it doesn’t have to be maintained in order to preserve its specific type/design in St. Louis. If SLU keeps the stack, I would support their current development plan.Â
Sorry, I don’t support you on this one. A building’s advanced age does not automatically qualify it for preservation. This building, in my opinion, has lived-out (not outlived) its intended use, and the property will be better used for a modern structure specifically designed for the new property owner. Drive up and down Washington (especially west of 18th) and in several locations in and around CWE and you see similar buildings currently developed as lofts/offices/warehouses. The Pevely building is not unique (like the saucer building on Grand), and so it doesn’t have to be maintained in order to preserve its specific type/design in St. Louis. If SLU keeps the stack, I would support their current development plan.
the national register designation is not based solely on age. why don’t you try reading the nomination so you know what you’re talking about. also, lived out INTENDED use =/= outlived all usefulness. if SLU had nowhere else to build their facility i would understand and support their position. as it is they own enough vacant land — much of it adjacent to the Pevely site — to build 10 ambulatory centers (that’s not even an exaggeration). there is no legitimate excuse for demolition of the Pevely. (and if there were one, don’t you think SLU would have given it by now?)
You’re a snarky one too! If someone disagrees with a purist, the worst always emerges.
well if you have some sort of argument that’s more substantial than your opinion let’s hear it. perhaps you could actually respond to a couple of my points, such as the fact that Pevely’s national register status, which provides for preservation review, is not based solely on the buildings age. in fact, it’s architecture was indeed a factor in it’s nomination and listing (it seems the architectural historians who evaluate the nominations disagree with your expert opinion). or maybe you could address SLU’s expansive, vacant, tax-free land holdings and give me a reason as to why they can’t build on that giant vacant lot (which they own) directly across the street. or i suppose you could just call me more names. that’s pretty convincing too.
The fact that SLU can build elsewhere really isn’t relevent to this discussion. That’s a straw argument that can be made about pretty much anyone wanting to build pretty much anything pretty much anywhere (NIMBY). I agree, it’s frustrating to watch SLU de-densify the area, much like how it’s frustrating to watch McKee’s properties being torn down on the north side, but the reality is that what really drives density is land values, and both McKee and SLU are taking advantage of low transaction prices to amass large tracts that few, if any, other buyers appear to be interested in. If you/we want more reuse of historic structures, it’s not that complicated, you/we need to find more users interested in buying or leasing historic buildings – duh!
I don’t think that anyone is disputing the facts in the nomination. The real issue is whether the current owners (SLU) can or want to make the effort to reuse the existing structure(s) versus starting over with bare ground – it’s essentially a battle of experts with differing perspectives, different opinions and different conclusions. And, on a larger scale, is how, as a city, we can and should balance “preserving” our huge building stock from the first half of the 20th century as we move forward into the 21st century, in a city with a very different economic base and a much smaller population. Vacant buildings don’t pay the freight, not to their owners, and not to city’s tax base.
EVERY old building has a history and every old building creates a sense of place, just from being someplace for decades – we expect to see it there and we’re comfortable with its presence, it’s a known and it’s usually comfortable. The challenge comes down to remaining relevent – can the old structure continue in its original use? Or, can it be REASONABLY be modified to serve a new purpose? And yes, money and budget does play a big role in that discussion – if you’re not the one writing the checks, it’s a whole lot easier to be saying what “should” be happening. Unfortunately, money talks when it comes to making construction reality. And, when it comes to this complex, I don’t know enough to make an educated decision about how viable reuse may or may not be.
A buiding’s “architectural significance” is certainly subjective. I moved to STL from Santa Monica, where I lived across the street from a “famous” architect who “embellished” the exterior of his home with chain link fencing hung at odd angles on fence post frames. The home was decorated much like a kid decorates a christmas tree, grabbing ornaments one after the other, giving the impression that little if any thought was given to the overall. It disgusted me. But this guy is highly esteemed in architectural circles, having designed buidings shaped like bincoulars and other unusual forms. But you know what? He had the right to destroy the conservative image of our Santa Monica neighborhood–because he owned his house and property. You’ll say, I’m sure, that SLU doesn’t have the “right” because the building is listed as historic, as if this should dictate to its future, ad infinitum. Well, IMHO, it doesn’t. Nothing should held together with bricks and mortar should be held as sancrosanct and dedicated ad majorem Dei gloriam! And your comment that SLU ‘…owns other vacant, …tax free land directly across the street’ does not strengthen your argument, IMHO. Again, they own the land, their deep pockets purchased the land….and they should control its destiny. Looks as if the eminent domain sign may have reversed a long-standing signage restriction in STL–which suggests that “anything” is subject to review and change. One last comment: I am a strucural engineer, and I have worked with teams that have provided seismic upgrades to buildings similar to the Pevely building. The column/spandrel beam design does not meet current standards for seismic design (not just because of column/beam attachment, but for several other reasons including inadequate/undersized footing design, questionable soils, the list is likely long and quite costly to address). And I wonder (even out loud sometimes) why SLU or anyone else would want to place their employees in such an environment that, at the least, will likely be seriously compromised during a major seismic event. To upgrade that building for seismic resistance to meet current codes would be a substantial effort and it would represent a financial challenge to anyone, including SLU who appears to have really deep pockets. And to do so would MODIFY its current facade. Your comment that SLU’s holdings are “tax free” really has nothing to do with this topic. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed in a different courtroom…at a different time. And finally…..you’ll notice in my initial post that I didn’t call you a name. “Snarky” describes your intent, not your person.
No, I’ll be at a different meeting. Bigger picture is your perception that it is somehow important to “pack” any meeting with supporters. Having been on both sides, I can see the appeal of “storming the gates”, but the reality is that packing a meeting room really isn’t that effective. This isn’t a popularity contest, this is an issue that must be decided within the limits of the board or commission. The most effective ways of getting a positive outcome are to have some people show up in support, make reasoned, rational arguments in support of your position and to be respectful of the process.
No, I’ll be at a different meeting. Bigger picture is your perception that it is somehow important to “pack” any meeting with supporters. Having been on both sides, I can see the appeal of “storming the gates”, but the reality is that packing a meeting room really isn’t that effective. This isn’t a popularity contest, this is an issue that must be decided within the limits of the board or commission. The most effective ways of getting a positive outcome are to have some people show up in support, make reasoned, rational arguments in support of your position and to be respectful of the process.
I took the comments of packing the room with supporters as packing the room with people who will make rational arguments in support of their position and being respectful of the process.
I don’t get why you’re always so sanctimonious.
Not trying to be sanctimonious, just trying to help people be better advocates for their positions. I’ve appeared before elected and appointed boards and I’ve served on appointed and elected boards. I’ve seen what works well and what doesn’t. Things like having people sign preprinted postcards or to sign poorly-worded “petitions” carry little value and can even spur false hopes. Making respectful, reasoned arguments are the best way to advocate your position, as is getting involved early and working to be a part of the process. And “packing” a room, especially to the point where it disrupts a board’s ability to conduct its business, IS in many cases, counterproductive.
The Planing Commission has a role to play in this decision, but like any other board, it is a limited role and one that is legally limited. Governmental decision making many times moves at a glacial pace, which can be frustrating for people who arn’t familiar with the process. I have an opinion on this issue, but I’m more passionate about another one, which is why my energies will be focused on that meeting of another quasi-public board.
Steve never said people should be disruptive at the meeting. He said he hopes people who support reuse of the building would attend.
Packing meetings is effective. It was used a lot by Bruce Ratner in Brooklyn as well as with McKee in Saint Louis. If the majority of attendees testify for a position it’s more likely to be approved than not. How that message is conveyed is important, however again Steve isn’t calling for Tea Party tactics.
Fill the seats with supporters and have 1-2 speakers can be very effective. Empty seats is interpreted as nobody cares.
I took the comments of packing the room with supporters as packing the room with people who will make rational arguments in support of their position and being respectful of the process.
I don’t get why you’re always so sanctimonious.
Fill the seats with supporters and have 1-2 speakers can be very effective. Empty seats is interpreted as nobody cares.
Steve, this building has a gigantic blank wall on the ground level, isn’t that exactly what you object to in all your other posts?
Steve, this building has a gigantic blank wall on the ground level, isn’t that exactly what you object to in all your other posts?
the ground-level windows have been bricked-in. they can be restored when the building is rehabbed.
Not trying to be sanctimonious, just trying to help people be better advocates for their positions. I’ve appeared before elected and appointed boards and I’ve served on appointed and elected boards. I’ve seen what works well and what doesn’t. Things like having people sign preprinted postcards or to sign poorly-worded “petitions” carry little value and can even spur false hopes. Making respectful, reasoned arguments are the best way to advocate your position, as is getting involved early and working to be a part of the process. And “packing” a room, especially to the point where it disrupts a board’s ability to conduct its business, IS in many cases, counterproductive.
The Planing Commission has a role to play in this decision, but like any other board, it is a limited role and one that is legally limited. Governmental decision making many times moves at a glacial pace, which can be frustrating for people who arn’t familiar with the process. I have an opinion on this issue, but I’m more passionate about another one, which is why my energies will be focused on that meeting of another quasi-public board.
Steve never said people should be disruptive at the meeting.  He said he hopes people who support reuse of the building would attend.
Packing meetings is effective. It was used a lot by Bruce Ratner in Brooklyn as well as with McKee in Saint Louis. If the majority of attendees testify for a position it’s more likely to be approved than not. How that message is conveyed is important, however again Steve isn’t calling for Tea Party tactics.Â
 the ground-level windows have been bricked-in. they can be restored when the building is rehabbed.
the national register designation is not based solely on age. why don’t you try reading the nomination so you know what you’re talking about. also, lived out INTENDED use =/= outlived all usefulness. if SLU had nowhere else to build their facility i would understand and support their position. as it is they own enough vacant land — much of it adjacent to the Pevely site — to build 10 ambulatory centers (that’s not even an exaggeration). there is no legitimate excuse for demolition of the Pevely. (and if there were one, don’t you think SLU would have given it by now?)
You’re a snarky one too! If someone disagrees with a purist, the worst always emerges.
I plan to be there.
I plan to be there.
well if you have some sort of argument that’s more substantial than your opinion let’s hear it. perhaps you could actually respond to a couple of my points, such as the fact that Pevely’s national register status, which provides for preservation review, is not based solely on the buildings age. in fact, it’s architecture was indeed a factor in it’s nomination and listing (it seems the architectural historians who evaluate the nominations disagree with your expert opinion). or maybe you could address SLU’s expansive, vacant, tax-free land holdings and give me a reason as to why they can’t build on that giant vacant lot (which they own) directly across the street. or i suppose you could just call me more names. that’s pretty convincing too.
The fact that SLU can build elsewhere really isn’t relevent to this discussion. That’s a straw argument that can be made about pretty much anyone wanting to build pretty much anything pretty much anywhere (NIMBY). I agree, it’s frustrating to watch SLU de-densify the area, much like how it’s frustrating to watch McKee’s properties being torn down on the north side, but the reality is that what really drives density is land values, and both McKee and SLU are taking advantage of low transaction prices to amass large tracts that few, if any, other buyers appear to be interested in. If you/we want more reuse of historic structures, it’s not that complicated, you/we need to find more users interested in buying or leasing historic buildings – duh!
I don’t think that anyone is disputing the facts in the nomination. The real issue is whether the current owners (SLU) can or want to make the effort to reuse the existing structure(s) versus starting over with bare ground – it’s essentially a battle of experts with differing perspectives, different opinions and different conclusions. And, on a larger scale, is how, as a city, we can and should balance “preserving” our huge building stock from the first half of the 20th century as we move forward into the 21st century, in a city with a very different economic base and a much smaller population. Vacant buildings don’t pay the freight, not to their owners, and not to city’s tax base.
EVERY old building has a history and every old building creates a sense of place, just from being someplace for decades – we expect to see it there and we’re comfortable with its presence, it’s a known and it’s usually comfortable. The challenge comes down to remaining relevent – can the old structure continue in its original use? Or, can it be REASONABLY be modified to serve a new purpose? And yes, money and budget does play a big role in that discussion – if you’re not the one writing the checks, it’s a whole lot easier to be saying what “should” be happening. Unfortunately, money talks when it comes to making construction reality. And, when it comes to this complex, I don’t know enough to make an educated decision about how viable reuse may or may not be.Â
A buiding’s “architectural significance” is certainly subjective. I moved to STL from Santa Monica, where I lived across the street from a “famous” architect who “embellished” the exterior of his home with chain link fencing hung at odd angles on fence post frames. The home was decorated much like a kid decorates a christmas tree, grabbing ornaments one after the other, giving the impression that little if any thought was given to the overall. It disgusted me. But this guy is highly esteemed in architectural circles, having designed buidings shaped like bincoulars and other unusual forms. But you know what? He had the right to destroy the conservative image of our Santa Monica neighborhood–because he owned his house and property. You’ll say, I’m sure, that SLU doesn’t have the “right” because the building is listed as historic, as if this should dictate to its future, ad infinitum. Well, IMHO, it doesn’t. Nothing should held together with bricks and mortar should be held as sancrosanct and dedicated ad majorem Dei gloriam! And your comment that SLU ‘…owns other vacant, …tax free land directly across the street’ does not strengthen your argument, IMHO. Again, they own the land, their deep pockets purchased the land….and they should control its destiny. Looks as if the eminent domain sign may have reversed a long-standing signage restriction in STL–which suggests that “anything” is subject to review and change. One last comment: I am a strucural engineer, and I have worked with teams that have provided seismic upgrades to buildings  similar to the Pevely building. The column/spandrel beam design does not meet current standards for seismic design (not just because of column/beam attachment, but for several other reasons including inadequate/undersized footing design, questionable soils, the list is likely long and quite costly to address). And I wonder (even out loud sometimes) why SLU or anyone else would want to place their employees in such an environment that, at the least, will likely be seriously compromised during a major seismic event. To upgrade that building for seismic resistance to meet current codes would be a substantial effort and it would represent a financial challenge to anyone, including SLU who appears to have really deep pockets. And to do so would MODIFY its current facade. Your comment that SLU’s holdings are “tax free” really has nothing to do with this topic. That’s an issue that needs to be addressed in a different courtroom…at a different time. And finally…..you’ll notice in my initial post that I didn’t call you a name. “Snarky” describes your intent, not your person.
The SLU plan is nothing more than a glorified Walgreens site plan. The whole problem here is that preservation aside, the real question is why the urban planning is not the center point of discussion. (refer to http://nextstl.com/ for detailed site plans and other info). Allowing the demolition of the Pevely Building has little to do with Historic Preservation and everything to do with the significant public investment in transit along Grand, including light rail. SLU has basically said screw the public, the city and the future of the city. SLU would rather replicate Chesterfield with the Doisy Center and now the latest suburban monstrosity across the street.
Ultimately the failure is on the Mayor, the Board of Alderman and the rest of the lackeys in City Hall. The decision making of the bankrupt Democratic Party that has overseen the past 50 year decline of St. Louis continues. Unfortunately the current Republican Party is no opposition with their main concern being governing the vaginas of women.
St. Louis is never going to rebound with this kind of crap. It is the usual kiss my ass bribe, donation, culture that is running things for the imagined benefit of the corporate elite.
That is the irony. Bernie Miklasz had a story last week complaining that no one was showing up to SLU basketball games at the new, shiny Chaifetz Arena, what he missed is how poor site planning has contributed to the lack of attendance at the Arena.
Poor site planning is hurting SLU and the City of St. Louis.
Many cities have mechanisms beyond preservation to ensure viable patterns of urban development take place. Although in most cases the developer is anxious to serve not only the auto centric public, but the transit riding public also, so it is usually not an issue. Any sane developer would want to enhance their civic importance designing projects for success and profit by courting both autos and transit.
It is only the head up their ass civic and political leadership of the City of St. Louis that prefers their personal desires gratified over the public good. They all need to go.
The SLU plan is nothing more than a glorified Walgreens site plan. The whole problem here is that preservation aside, the real question is why the urban planning is not the center point of discussion. (refer to http://nextstl.com/ for detailed site plans and other info). Allowing the demolition of the Pevely Building has little to do with Historic Preservation and everything to do with the significant public investment in transit along Grand, including light rail. SLU has basically said screw the public, the city and the future of the city. SLU would rather replicate Chesterfield with the Doisy Center and now the latest suburban monstrosity across the street.
Ultimately the failure is on the Mayor, the Board of Alderman and the rest of the lackeys in City Hall. The decision making of the bankrupt Democratic Party that has overseen the past 50 year decline of St. Louis continues. Unfortunately the current Republican Party is no opposition with their main concern being governing the vaginas of women.
St. Louis is never going to rebound with this kind of crap. It is the usual kiss my ass bribe, donation, culture that is running things for the imagined benefit of the corporate elite.
That is the irony. Bernie Miklasz had a story last week complaining that no one was showing up to SLU basketball games at the new, shiny Chaifetz Arena, what he missed is how poor site planning has contributed to the lack of attendance at the Arena.
Poor site planning is hurting SLU and the City of St. Louis.
Many cities have mechanisms beyond preservation to ensure viable patterns of urban development take place. Although in most cases the developer is anxious to serve not only the auto centric public, but the transit riding public also, so it is usually not an issue. Any sane developer would want to enhance their civic importance designing projects for success and profit by courting both autos and transit.
It is only the head up their ass civic and political leadership of the City of St. Louis that prefers their personal desires gratified over the public good. They all need to go.
The SLU plan is nothing more than a glorified Walgreens site plan. The whole problem here is that preservation aside, the real question is why the urban planning is not the center point of discussion. (refer to http://nextstl.com/ for detailed site plans and other info). Allowing the demolition of the Pevely Building has little to do with Historic Preservation and everything to do with the significant public investment in transit along Grand, including light rail. SLU has basically said screw the public, the city and the future of the city. SLU would rather replicate Chesterfield with the Doisy Center and now the latest suburban monstrosity across the street.
Ultimately the failure is on the Mayor, the Board of Alderman and the rest of the lackeys in City Hall. The decision making of the bankrupt Democratic Party that has overseen the past 50 year decline of St. Louis continues. Unfortunately the current Republican Party is no opposition with their main concern being governing the vaginas of women.
St. Louis is never going to rebound with this kind of crap. It is the usual kiss my ass bribe, donation, culture that is running things for the imagined benefit of the corporate elite.
That is the irony. Bernie Miklasz had a story last week complaining that no one was showing up to SLU basketball games at the new, shiny Chaifetz Arena, what he missed is how poor site planning has contributed to the lack of attendance at the Arena.
Poor site planning is hurting SLU and the City of St. Louis.
Many cities have mechanisms beyond preservation to ensure viable patterns of urban development take place. Although in most cases the developer is anxious to serve not only the auto centric public, but the transit riding public also, so it is usually not an issue. Any sane developer would want to enhance their civic importance designing projects for success and profit by courting both autos and transit.
It is only the head up their ass civic and political leadership of the City of St. Louis that prefers their personal desires gratified over the public good. They all need to go.
Agreed, Planning Commission members were praising SLU’s investment in the city.
SLU’s decision to invest in the city IS a good thing; it’s the physical form that it’s taking that is open for debate.
Whether you like it or not, institutions like SLU, Wash U and BJC are important parts of St. Louis’ present and future. They employ a lot of local people, they’re willing to invest in renovation and new construction and they attract people from outside the area to spend money here. And, yes, the three instituitions noted are taking three different paths as they build out their respective campuses. These paths have little to do with government master planning and a lot to do with the vision of the leaders of each institution, the realities of our local real estate market, and the institution’s CHOICE to integrate (or not) public transit into their plans. Instead of debating why any one building should or shouldn’t be “saved”, wouldn’t it be better to focus on the how’s and why’s of the best practices at each institution, in hopes of educating and persuading the others?
Agreed, Planning Commission members were praising SLU’s investment in the city.
Agreed, Planning Commission members were praising SLU’s investment in the city.
SLU’s decision to invest in the city IS a good thing; it’s the physical form that it’s taking that is open for debate.
Whether you like it or not, institutions like SLU, Wash U and BJC are important parts of St. Louis’ present and future. They employ a lot of local people, they’re willing to invest in renovation and new construction and they attract people from outside the area to spend money here. And, yes, the three instituitions noted are taking three different paths as they build out their respective campuses. These paths have little to do with government master planning and a lot to do with the vision of the leaders of each institution, the realities of our local real estate market, and the institution’s CHOICE to integrate (or not) public transit into their plans. Instead of debating why any one building should or shouldn’t be “saved”, wouldn’t it be better to focus on the how’s and why’s of the best practices at each institution, in hopes of educating and persuading the others?
This is nothing but a re-hash of the same discussion pertaining to the glass tower condo building built in the “historic” Central West End. So many people were against it…it would destroy the character, destroy buildings that had been there years, scare people off, add traffic, and yada, yada, yada. Here we are now, years later….the condos are up, pedestrian density greatly increased property values up, business sales up, etc. Ask now what they think of the tower and I bet less than 95% of those originally against the building would now be for it.
This is nothing but a re-hash of the same discussion pertaining to the glass tower condo building built in the “historic” Central West End. So many people were against it…it would destroy the character, destroy buildings that had been there years, scare people off, add traffic, and yada, yada, yada. Here we are now, years later….the condos are up, pedestrian density greatly increased property values up, business sales up, etc. Ask now what they think of the tower and I bet less than 95% of those originally against the building would now be for it.
I don’t agree with your point when in the fact the glass tower condo filled most of the existing lot, foot print of what was previously located there and most likely created density because it added verticality to an existing urban area.
While the merits of the Peveley building itself are being argued. The site plan represents what SLU has systemically been doing for entirety of its mid town campus. Its reducing the footprints of existing buildings in urban setting to single structures on much larger lots, areas. Just look what is and has happen around Pevely complex itself or the hospital complex. In the long run, I just don’t understand how a city that is landlocked succeeds when a large non profit tax exempt institution substantially increases its ownership of properties while reducing the footprint of structures on those properties at the same time.
Structures at the end of the day mean residents, jobs and tax revenues for cities. Yes, SLU brings jobs. But they could fill those jobs in a much more compact campus while at the same time promoting external residents and jobs on its fringes. In other words, its a loss opportunity for the city’s future. Something that is very much defined in business itself.
Or for the sake of my argument, CORTEX Phase II will be a $140 million investment of rehabbing two existing buildings for which you can argue that they outlived their usefullness also and BJC building a new one on an empty lot. BJC is adding density, investing in existing structures and building new within a urban context. I just see a signficant difference in laymen terms how BJC/Wash U have/are approaching their campuses and how SLU is approaching theirs, especially when you loot at the Track/Sports Field, Chavitz and as the two most recent investments with lots of scattered demo by the campus. Yes, SLU is part of CORTEX but very much doubt they are driving the bus and glad they are not.
That being said, I will certainly commend SLU’s choice/direction for their law school. They needed a change to be competitive in my mind and found a way to take advantage of a large gift instead of waiting several more years on donations to go forward. Wish UMSL would do the same thing for its much delayed Business administration building it desires. Instead they wait will several more years for donations just as they wait several more years for the state to fund the rebuilding of its science building. SLU’s law school will go forward while UMSL Business school will not.
I don’t agree with your point when in the fact the glass tower condo filled most of the existing lot, foot print of what was previously located there and most likely created density because it added verticality to an existing urban area.Â
While the merits of the Peveley building itself are being argued. The site plan represents what SLU has systemically been doing for entirety of its mid town campus. Its reducing the footprints of existing buildings in urban setting to single structures on much larger lots, areas. Just look what is and has happen around Pevely complex itself or the hospital complex. In the long run, I just don’t understand how a city that is landlocked succeeds when a large non profit tax exempt institution substantially increases its ownership of properties while reducing the footprint of structures on those properties at the same time.Â
Structures at the end of the day mean residents, jobs and tax revenues for cities. Yes, SLU brings jobs. But they could fill those jobs in a much more compact campus while at the same time promoting external residents and jobs on its fringes. In other words, its a loss opportunity for the city’s future. Something that is very much defined in business itself.
Or for the sake of my argument, CORTEX Phase II will be a $140 million investment of rehabbing two existing buildings for which you can argue that they outlived their usefullness also and BJC building a new one on an empty lot. BJC is adding density, investing in existing structures and building new within a urban context. I just see a signficant difference in laymen terms how BJC/Wash U have/are approaching their campuses and how SLU is approaching theirs, especially when you loot at the Track/Sports Field, Chavitz and as the two most recent investments with lots of scattered demo by the campus. Yes, SLU is part of CORTEX but very much doubt they are driving the bus and glad they are not.
That being said, I will certainly commend SLU’s choice/direction for their law school. They needed a change to be competitive in my mind and found a way to take advantage of a large gift instead of waiting several more years on donations to go forward. Wish UMSL would do the same thing for its much delayed Business administration building it desires.  Instead they wait will several more years for donations just as they wait several more years for the state to fund the rebuilding of its science building. SLU’s law school will go forward while UMSL Business school will not.
I love how Biondi mentions Cupples House as an example of SLU’s historic preservation. One lone man, Father McNamee, initiated the early ’70s battle to save this Romanesque landmark. Thankfully, his campaign was successful. If Biondi had been on the scene, it would have been leveled shortly after shrill, public threats to move something “to the county” if he didn’t get his way. Inarticulate, foot-stomping tantrums seem to prevail over consideration of facts. They are typically made by individuals who state their deep love for and dedication to the city, which they will of course abandon immediately if they don’t get what they want.Â
I love how Biondi mentions Cupples House as an example of SLU’s historic preservation. One lone man, Father McNamee, initiated the early ’70s battle to save this Romanesque landmark. Thankfully, his campaign was successful. If Biondi had been on the scene, it would have been leveled shortly after shrill, public threats to move something “to the county” if he didn’t get his way. Inarticulate, foot-stomping tantrums seem to prevail over consideration of facts. They are typically made by individuals who state their deep love for and dedication to the city, which they will of course abandon immediately if they don’t get what they want.