SLU Profs To Give Presentation on the “Crisis of Modern Public Housing.”

Two Professors from Saint Louis University, Joseph Heathcott and Todd Swanstrom, will be presenting what promises to be a very interesting topic:

The Crisis of Modernist Public Housing: Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis and Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam

Pruitt-Igoe, of course, is the failed housing project on the near north side that was imploded in 1972, less than 20 years after completion. The architect, Minoru Yamasaki, also designed the World Trade Center destroyed on September 11, 2001. The Pruitt-Igoe site has been vacant for nearly 35 years.

This will be contrasted with Amsterdam’s Bijilmermeer project which Heathcott and Swanstrom visited this summer while researching abroad. Both projects had seemingly similar origins yet vastly different outcomes. Heathcott and Swanstrom should be able to shed some light as to the reasons why.

This presentation will be held on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 4:30pm at the SLU Cook School of Business in Room 236 (Building #7 on campus map, caddy corner from The Coronado) and is sponsored by the St. Louis Metropolitan Research Exchange (STLMRE) and the SLU Department of Public Policy Studies. The event is free and open to the public with a reception to follow!

Fine Building on MLK Razed; Ward not in Preservation Review District

Last April the St. Louis Chapter of the American Institute of Architects conducted a design charrette in the historic Ville neighborhood. During the event I scootered up and down MLK getting photos of buildings both in the Ville and in areas east and west. Upon showing pictures of this building to one team, they asked to use the images. One member of that team was Architect John Burse, a resident of Old North St. Louis and a member of the St. Louis Preservation Board.

Burse felt this building was a great model to show how you can mix residential buildings with commercial storefronts. Additionally, all felt the design of the building was quite nice with great proportions and detailing.

The photos are all that remain of this building that, if rehabbed, could have made a nice contribution to the streetscape. Instead another vacant lot will join all the others along MLK.

I took this photo on Saturday afternoon and sent it to John Burse last night. Neither of us recalled seeing it on a Preservation Board agenda (again, he is a member of the Preservation Board). Today I looked up the property address and it is no wonder it did not come before the Preservation Board: it is located in Terry Kennedy’s 18th Ward in one of the many neighborhoods that border MLK.

I don’t believe any of the 18th Ward is in a Preservation Review District — a designation that provides for the review of an application before a demolition permit can be issued. I say I don’t believe because no map of what is in the Preservation Review is available online. I don’t know that one is available even if I asked. One can look up individual properties to see if they are in such a district or a Historic District but that doesn’t show what areas are, in effect, demolition zones.

The irony here is that Ald. Kennedy, as chairman of the Public Safety Committee, sits on the Preservation Board. Ald. Kennedy is up for re-election in March 2007.

The Preservation Board a Public Hearing or Not?

The new Chair of the St. Louis Preservation Board, Richard Callow, insists the meetings of the Preservation Board are not public hearings — that public input is taken but not required by ordinance. Callow has previously suggested I look at the enabling code, Chapter 24.08. In reading through that section I found this:

D. Subject to the written approval of the Planning Commission, the Preservation Board shall make and adopt, and may from time to time amend, rules and bylaws governing the conduct of its business and providing for the administration of this title.

This begs the question, what are the rules and bylaws that have been approved by the Planning Commission for the conduct of the Preservation Board? The city’s Cultural Resources office website certainly doesn’t list any rules, bylaws or anything else to help the public understand the process of going before the Preservation Board.

In another section of the city code, under demolition review, the law does make reference to a hearing:

The Cultural Resources Office shall immediately refer any application which is the subject of such an appeal, and the Cultural Resources Office’s entire file thereon, to the Preservation Board for hearing and resolution, based on the criteria set out in Sections 24.40.010 to 24.40.050.

Why is this important? Decisions of the Preservation Board impact the entire city but they don’t seem to have any public notice requirements — today’s meeting agenda was just posted today. Furthermore, anyone from the public wishing to speak on an item must arrive prior to 4pm and sign the sheet for that item. This, I believe, places an undue burden on the public and discourages them from becoming more involved in their community.

With the Preservation Board weighing decisions on demolitions, new construction and other concerns in Historic Districts and Preservation Review Districts you’d think there would be some form of advance notice — at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing. The Cultural Resources Office does produce highly detailed PDF reports on each topic but at the very least they could list the property address in question, what is being decided (demo, new windows, etc…) and what neighborhood it falls under. Having at least this would alert the public in those neighborhoods that something is coming up they may wish to speak on.

Often during the Preservation Board you’ll hear one of the members ask the staff if they’ve heard from the neighborhood group. The answer is almost always no (Lafayette Square excepted). I wonder why? Perhaps because neighbors don’t have a clue a decision is being made about properties near them!

Michael Allen over at Ecology of Absence wrote about this subject last Friday.

Today’s meeting starts at 4pm. The agenda includes 7 items and encompassing hundreds of pages. Better start reading….

Marking the Date: 9-11

My first trip to NYC was planning well before September 11th but it happened that I would be in NYC in late October. I took the picture at right on October 30, 2001, near ground zero. I’ll never forget the horrible stench in the air from the still smoldering “debris.”

I could have shown you pictures of the mangled buildings in the area and the blocked off streets around ground zero. But not today. Today is for the people who lost their lives in New York, DC and in Pennsylvania.

Rather than go off on a ‘we are at war due to sprawl and SUV‘ rant I’ll just direct you to James Howard Kunstler for said perspective.

Peace.

Developer Curran Tosses Egg on Preservation Board’s Face

Developer Michael Curran just reduced the number of units at the Mississippi Bluffs project from 56 to a measly 34. I say measly because the site is a massive 8.2 acres. Part of the site, as you may recall, had the wonderful but tired Doering Mansion (shown at right). This formerly graceful mansion sat on the far north 1.79 acres. Myself and others argued before the Preservation Board the Doering Mansion should be saved which would still leave 6.4 acres for new construction. The Doering Mansion was razed earlier this year.

From the Suburban Journal last week:

Curran had argued before the St. Louis Preservation Board late last year that he had to have the larger amount to make the project feasible.

At the time, Curran was seeking the Preservation Board’s permission to tear down the Doering Mansion on the north side of the property to make room for more townhouses.

He said at the time with a smaller amount of townhouses – 42 – he couldn’t recover the cost of preparing the property for development, including demolishing the old Good Samaritan Home. To recoup the investment on a smaller area, he would have to build a larger condominium development with about 120 units.

That would overwhelm a prime piece of property, Curran said at the time. Rather than do that, Curran said at the time he would sell the property to another developer.

The Preservation Board wound up voting to approve the project and demolish the mansion.

OK, just so we understand. Before the mansion was razed it was argued by the developer that if he could not tear down the historic structure that would reduce his planned 56 units to 42 units and at that rate he could not make any money and would be forced to abandon the project and sell the property. The only way he could recoup his costs if the mansion stayed was to build a bigger structure on the balance of the site containing 120 units. The classic doom and gloom argument.

Now, he says, due to site costs he cannot build 56 units because it would be too expensive!!! Thus, he is placing only 34 units on the 8.2 acre site. He couldn’t make money with 42 units on 6.4 acres plus a mansion but he can somehow make money with 34 and no mansion? Was the Preservation Board taken for a ride when they approved the demolition of the Doering Mansion? I think so.

This is yet another example of a poorly executed project in this city. The Mansion was razed in February and yet no construction has begun. Had they started razing the old Good Samaritan Home first they might have realized the folly of their plan and been able to go back to the drawing board before the loss of the mansion. This developer has an excellent track record with historic rehab projects but is not doing so well with new construction. He probably would have been better off with the old mansion. This fine example of planning shares the same ward as Loughborough Commons, Matt Villa’s 11th Ward.