North St. Louis Founded 196 Years Ago Today

Today when we think of north St. Louis we think of the north half of the city whose boundaries were established in 1876. Sixty years earlier North St. Louis was founded as a separate municipality from St. Louis:

June 29, 1816:

A town was incorporated which rivaled its southern neighbor, St. Louis, for many years. The new town, founded by Maj. William Christy, was named simply “North St. Louis.” Its southern boundary line was Madison Street, then a considerable distance from the northern boundary of the city which Christy and his associates referred to as “St. Louis under the hill.”

Christy had come to St. Louis from Pennsylvania with advanced ideas about city planning. With two partners, he proposed a scheme for developing a city which would appeal to the settlers flocking in from the East. Street names reflected the founders’ interest in politics — Madison and Monroe; Benton for the young lawyer who would become one of Missouri’s first senators; and Warren, for a hero at Bunker Hill.  A boatyard was established, and inducements offered steamboats to land at North St. Louis instead of farther downstream. A ferry made regular runs between North St. Louis and Alton.  In 1841, just a quarter century after its founding, the city was absorbed into St. Louis. (Source: St. Louis Day by Day by Frances Hurd Stadler, page 122) 

Hence most of the area is known today as the Old North St. Louis neighborhood today.

Keep in mind St. Louis was founded in 1764 and incorporated in 1822. If my sources are correct, North St. Louis was incorporated six years before St. Louis was! St. Louis’ population was small but growing quickly:

• 1810: 1,600
• 1820: not available
• 1830: 4,977
• 1840: 16,469
• 1850: 77,860
• Source: Wikipedia

My original intent of this post was just to note the anniversary but the part about North St. Louis offering inducements to steam ships has me thinking about the many municipalities in our region still doing the same thing nearly two hundred years later.

I was a resident of Old North St. Louis from 1991-94 and I try to get to Crown Candy Kitchen 2-3 times per year.

— Steve Patterson

Historic District Standards Need Updating

Many of St. Louis’ first historic district regulations were written in the early 1970s, the thinking at the time was we needed to strip away “clutter’ such as projecting signs in order to compete with the tidy new suburbs.  Later regulations used the earlier ones as a base so today we have many regulations that are out of sync with our thinking 40 years later. Attitudes and thinking change.

In 1947 the St. Louis Comprehensive Plan called for razing all of the Soulard neighborhood and building a new suburban-style subdivision, complete with cul-de-sac streets!!

Plate Number 16 is a plan for the reconstruction of the Soulard Neighborhood. Some of the more important features of the plan are: the extension of Gravois Avenue from Twelfth Street to the proposed Third Street Interstate Highway, providing a direct route to the central business district; the widening of 18th Street, the widening and extension of 14th Street, the widening of Park and Lafayette Avenues; underground garages in the multi-storied apartment area between 12th and 14th; a neighborhood part of 10 acres or more complete with spray pool, community facilities and game courts; the extension of Lafayette Park to serve this as well as other neighborhoods; landscaped areas throughout the community for passive recreation; enlargement of the City Hospital area; grouping of commercial areas into orderly shopping centers and the complete reconstruction of the neighborhood into super residential blocks with a new street pattern to serve these blocks and to discourage through traffic.

Such a plan would transform an obsolete area into a fine residential neighborhood with a good standard of housing, enlarged open areas, greatly improved environment, small concentrated shop centers, and much needed park and recreation space. The new interstate highway passes diagonally through this neighborhood and could be most advantageously undertaken simultaneously with the reconstruction. This is an area well suited for families of medium incomes. (Obsolete areas)

Just 25 years later Soulard is designated a historic district! Again, those early days of preservation regulations attempted to freeze the natural evolution of buildings, no doubt a reaction to a few decades of pro-demolition thinking. It’s possible, I believe, to preserve the historic neighborhood while allowing solar panels but not white vinyl windows with too many dividers between the panes. Yes, it’s subjective. In 25 years solar panels can be removed…of course so could inappropriate windows.

Here are the poll results from last week on this topic:

Q: St. Louis denied a solar panel on a visible roof in historic Soulard, thoughts:

1. Ridiculous, all the air conditioners that are visible in Soulard are equally out of place 46 [39.66%]
2. Just following the set standards, but they’re outdated and need to change 31 [26.72%]
3. Good, we need to keep historic districts looking nice 12 [10.34%]
4. Owners of historic buildings are better off buying power from alternate sources rather than clutter up their buildings 11 [9.48%]
5. Understand the rules before you buy/rent/lease a buildling! 6 [5.17%]
6. Other: 9 [7.76%]
7. unsure/no opinion 1 [0.86%]

The “other” answers were:

1. Why not rent rooftop space from a more practical building (warehouse, box store)
2. dumb, other cities can add this to the evidence that STL is a dying city.
3. I guess no one has noticed the potential of energy shortages
4. Where are the options for letting them install solar panels???
5. I think it is interesting that this was enforced, but Pevely was demolished…
6. Creative solutions that maintains the historic facade but allows modernization.
7. It’s not rediculous, but well designed/installed panels should be allowed.
8. is there a compromise such solar panels in the shape of tiles?
9. Understand the rules before you buy/rent/lease a buildling!

Just like ordinances, these historic district standards need to be reviewed and updated on s regular basis. Monday the Preservation Board granted a variance to allow solar panels at Bastille.

— Steve Patterson

Poll: Should the AAA Building on Lindell Be Saved, Razed or ??

Tomorrow evening, Monday June 25th, the Preservation Board will consider giving preliminary approval for a new CVS pharmacy on Lindell just west of Vandeventer Ave. This would involve the demolition of the two existing structures on the site, the very unique round AAA building from 1976 and a nondescript garage. The city’s Cultural Resources staff recommends:

That the Board not grant preliminary approval of the proposed demolition of the AAA building but grant preliminary approval for the demolition of the diagnostic garage building.

It’s not uncommon for the Preservation Board to vote against the staff recommendation.

Architect Paul Hohmann recently blogged about the proposed site plan:

The site plan completely disregards the planned Central West End-Midtown Sustainable Form Based Zoning overlay district that has been in development for two years and is scheduled to be adopted as an ordinance this fall. Board Bill #79, which is enabling legislation that will allow the adoption of form based zoning overlay districts throughout the City of St. Louis was introduced by 17th Ward Alderman Joe Roddy on June 1st. (Vanishing St. Louis)

Hohmann points to the recent structure next door built in keeping with the form-based code which isn’t yet law.

There are many ways to view this situation.

• No mid-1970s building is a cultural asset worthy of protection.
• Can the area support another pharmacy? A Walgreen’s is just a short distance to the west.
• While the building may be unique its uses are limited.
• If we raze AAA the site should get considerably denser like the 3949 Lindell Apartments next door.

The latter is where I’m at. I like the AAA building but for a dense development I think it could be sacrificed. It’s not like CVS is opposed to locating in new dense mixed-use buildings:

I’d be fine with a CVS on the site as part of a building like the one in Normal IL.  Acquire the Rally’s and fill out the site to Lindell, Vandeventer and McPherson. But not a one story pharmacy surrounded by surface parking. Being so close to Saint Louis University this site can support higher density.

This is the subject for the poll this week, vote in the right sidebar. For a great look at the AAA building read The Auto Club of Missouri’s Proud New Building.

The Preservation Board meets at 4pm in a new location: 1520 Market Street Suite 2000.

UPDATE 6/25/2012 6:45pm: The Preservation Board voted unanimously to reject the demolition of both structures on the site. This was just a preliminary review.

– Steve Patterson

Breakthrough On Transit Worker Strike: June 22, 1900

June 22, 1900 was an important day in St. Louis, a beginning to restoring order and mobility:

The first breakthrough came in the streetcar strike which had terrorized St. Louisans for almost eight weeks, when employees of the Suburban Road reached an amicable settlement with management. Violence during the long strike had been frequent. Dynamite placed on the tracks of several lines on June 17 had damaged cars, but not passengers. A citizens’ posse had had violent encounters with strikers, and several people head been killed in riots and shootings. Those bold enough to brave the union’s disfavor by riding the cars were jeered at and sometimes assaulted by angry crowds of union sympathizers, and several riders had had their clothes torn off when they alighted from the cars.

The union’s grievances were concerned with low pay and long hours.  The seriousness of the strike, largest of of (sic) its kind to date in the nation, was attested by the arrival of Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, who tried uncussessfully (sic) to arbitrate with local authorities in mid-June.  (Source: The book ‘St. Louis Day by Day’ by Frances Hurd Stadler)

From Wikipedia:

The St. Louis Streetcar Strike of 1900 was a labor action, and resulting civil disruption, against the St. Louis Transit Company by a group of three thousand workers unionized by the Amalgamated Street Railway Employees of America.

Between May 7 and the end of the strike in September, 14 people had been killed, and 200 wounded. (Wikipedia)

From a 2010 Post-Dispatch article (recommended):

Employees of St. Louis Transit Co., controlling all but a few routes, voted at 2 a.m. May 8, 1900, to strike. The bosses vowed to operate the cars. Strikers and sympathizers quickly gathered along the routes leading downtown.

At 15th Street and Washington Avenue, women from the Garment Workers Union stood across the tracks. A large crowd at Sixth and Locust streets pelted streetcars with rocks and cut overhead power lines. (stltoday.com: A look back • Bloody street strike in 1900 rips open class divide)

In anticipation of a commenter asking “so what?’ let me state this post is a history lesson; there is no hidden agenda, no special meaning, etc.  If you’re not satisfied please email me to request a refund.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Thoughts on Solar Panels In Historic Neighborhoods?

An interesting debate about solar panels in historic neighborhoods was in the news lately:

Bob Hiscox wants solar panels on his roof.

Energy costs are rising. Hiscox is increasingly concerned about the environment. And government rebates could help him fund the $45,000 cost.

But his building, the Soulard Bastille Bar on Russell Boulevard south of downtown, has a roof that faces the street. And that means his solar array would break neighborhood rules. Soulard, a national historic district, does not allow visible panels. (St. Louis battle over solar panels pits preservation against environmentalism)

Michael Allen has a thoughtful post on the subject, here is part:

The Soulard local historic district standards are not explicit about solar panels, which means that their installation requires a variance. The standards mandate that the character of sloped roofs be maintained through adherence to one of several times (sic) of approved roofing (most of which were not in use before 1900, I might point out). In a few instances, the Cultural Resources Office (CRO) has recommended that the Preservation Board grant a variance, and the Board has done just that. This time, however, CRO recommended denial of a variance based on the public visibility of the Bastille’s street-facing rear roof. (recommended –  Soulard Solar Collectors)

If you want to learn more here are some helpful resources:

• 1972 nomination of the neighborhood to the National Register of Historic Places
• Soulard Historic District Ordinance
• Soulard Rehabilitation and New Construction Standards

I thought this would be a good topic for this week’s poll (see right sidebar). Poll results and my thoughts on Wednesday June 27th.

– Steve Patterson