The Disappearing Urban Billboard

I’ve talked at length before about signs and billboards (here and here). These days it is all about the large-scale vinyl banner but in earlier times what wasn’t painted on the side of a building was set on the roof.  I had never given these old billboards much thought, until recently.

Above is the Farmers and Merchants building in February of 2006 with an advertisement for the phone book, of all things. To preservation purists the billboard is an eyesore. The platform in front of the billboard masks the decorative elements along the parapet of the building and adds a cluttered look, right?

Above, in November 2007, the billboard is gone but the framework remains — for now. Soon the framework will be off to a metal recycler. Standing in the beautifully renovated South Side National Bank, now condos, with a representative from The Lawrence Group I couldn’t help feel a sudden loss when he indicated it was going away. “No!” I cried out.

I can’t fault the Lawrence Group, well, not too much.  They own the building and want to do a new roof, hard to argue with that logic.  I know if they wanted to install such a billboard folks would be upset.  This, of course, got me wondering if I’d be one of those objecting to a large display of commercialism if this same billboard were proposed today.

Near my office, on South Kingshighway, is another rooftop billboard above the yummy Lily’s restaurant. This helps answer my question — I think I’d be able to support having such billboards along commercial streets.  I’d be cautious about light pollution — excess light cast into nearby windows from the billboard.  But in general, I rather like it.
Even though I don’t always like the message on the billboard, I like the presence.  It adds a nice touch of urban messiness to the street.  I like the shadows they cast.  I like the details of the metal structure and the supports where the structure touches the roof or exterior masonry walls.  I don’t want St. Louis to become Times Square or Las Vegas but such are part of our culture.

Above is from a scene in the classic 1992 film, Strictly Ballroom, with Scott and Fran dancing on the roof amongst the laundry and a Coke billboard.  OK, that was based in Australia — see how universal the billboard truly is.  We have Billboard magazine and I’m sure we’ve all seen a sitcom or two with folks up on a billboard trying to change the message.

I like urban clutter, but not just any clutter.  I don’t like tons of little (or big) vinyl banners affixed to the face of buildings.   I’m also not a fan of the big billboard on a pole — just sticking up in the air, often next to the highway.  But there is something about the rooftop billboard that I find endearing.

As a matter of public policy, I wouldn’t go so far as to prevent an owner from removing a billboard from their building but I could also see circumstances where not only might such a sign be welcomed, but actually encouraged.  I could imagine allowing property owners along major streets to erect billboards as part of a development project — as an incentive for doing a more urban project.  For example, say Walgreens were to renovate an existing urban building (aka up to sidewalk, parking on-street/behind) and then lease the 2nd floor apartments.  I’d let them have a billboard on the roof for that.

I’d want it to be at least on a two-story building.  Again, issues of light pollution would need to be addressed.  Not Times Square, just enough to upset the anti-clutter folks.

Aldermen Pass Legislation to Approve 10-Year Tax Abatement for Strip Center

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen just “perfected” Board Bill #257 giving the suburban strip mall at 2000-2014 South 7th (aka Broadway to most of us) at Russell 10-year tax abatement. Basically the building, built as part of a prior redevelopment plan, was considered “blighted” because it was vacant.

Last month the project added a sidewalk connecting a portion, but not all, of the storefronts to the public sidewalk system. For more information click here.

Schmid Names All Association Members to Nominating Committee In Marine Villa Neighborhood

It’s been a tough year for Alderman Craig Schmid. The old guard controlling the Cherokee Station Business Association were ousted (see post). Schmid then faced a primary opponent to keep his seat (which he did) and neighbors in the Marine Villa neighborhood, where he serves as President, have been pressuring him on the leadership of the organization.

Neighbors have been pushing for open elections, per the 1969 bylaws they finally got a copy of earlier this year (see post). These bylaws call for the President to create a “Nominating Committee” of an unspecified number of persons. So what does Schmid do? He mails out a letter to all members stating they are all on the nominating committee. He is asking them to mail back to him their nomination.

Several things I should note about this, I received copies of these mailings via an anonymous email account. The mailings were sent out in official Board of Alderman envelopes, despite not being official aldermanic business (image at right, click to see larger version in Flickr). Presumably city tax payers bought the envelopes for official business? The mailings were stamped so we don’t really know who funded the postage. Ditto for the return envelopes which had postage affixed.

Despite this questionable use of taxpayer funded materials (envelopes at a minimum) the mailed out form listed all six positions up for nomination. However, it gives the member only one place to nominate for a single office. Must these members run out to Kinko’s to make multiple copies of this form to nominate someone for each office?

One last thing the sender pointed out to me — the materials sent have conflicting boundaries for the neighborhood. The bylaws state Jefferson as the Western boundary and I-55 as the Eastern boundary. However, a flyer for their next meeting on January 28, 2008 indicates California (street) as the Western boundary and the river as the Eastern boundary. Maybe the first order of business at the next meeting might be to nail down those boundaries once and for all?

Click here to view the 3-pages mailed to members (I’ve circled the boundary sections on pages 2 & 3). Their next meeting is on the 28th of January although the flyer doesn’t list the time. Their website says 6:30pm. I’m thinking this will be an interesting meeting to attend.

Auto-Centric Strip Mall in City Adds Pedestrian Access

Just a few weeks ago the curbs were in place for the auto drives/parking at the new auto-centric strip mall, located technically across the street from the Soulard neighborhood (see prior post). As of October 21st, no visible signs of any pedestrian access had been made — it was as if it was assumed everyone would simply drive to this location even if you could see the place from your home a block away.

From another angle we can see, below, the curbs all in place and simply ready for the asphalt.

Myself and others objected to the suburban design, no doubt. But lacking a single sidewalk connection was just too much — people in the city do in fact walk.

Today, above, we see that a short section of sidewalk was added between the public sidewalk and the auto drive. The newly poured curbs were cut out and replaced with accessible ramps. Although I have not checked the ramps for precise compliance at first glance they appear to comply. See there, it wasn’t so hard was it?

Does this new accessible entrance make this project urban? Hardly. Does it make the project minimally tolerable until it can be razed for something worthy of being in our city? Yes! Why something so simply as a few feet of concrete and assumption that people will in fact seek out a walkable environment (although this is not technically a good walkable environment) it not required from day one is beyond me. This is not difficult and for a subsidized project this should be the very minimal that is acceptable.

Thank you to everyone that express their outrage over this lack of pedestrian access and the overall suburban nature of this design.  Hopefully we’ll make enough developers come back and modify their designs to add pedestrian access that at some point they’ll just ask for it up front!  Of course, you’d think their architects and engineers would just include it to begin with —- it is a federal requirement after all.

As of this time the Starbuck’s, a separate structure at the far end, still does not seem to comply with the ADA standards for accessibility.

BPS Denies Larry Rice’s Request for a Conditional-Use Zoning Permit

This afternoon St. Louis’ Board of Public Service met to hear numerous issues related to zoning. One of the items was an application from Larry Rice’s New Life Evangelistic Center to open an energy center in an old commercial building located in the middle of residential block in South city.
Numerous neighbors came out strong in opposition earlier this month. Ald. Kirner, who initially supported the project, changed her mind once her constituents began to speak out against the proposal.

Rice may appeal today’s decision to the Board of Adjustment.

Larry Rice’s Conditional-Use Zoning Request to be Decided by BPS Today

This afternoon staff of the Board of Public Service will give their recommendation to the Board of Public Service regarding the request by Larry Rice of the New Life Evangelistic Center for a conditional use permit to operate an Energy Center in an otherwise residential block.  Earlier this month a hearing was held where Rice and others spoke for or against the zoning request.  Today’s meeting is just that — a meeting.  No new testimony will be hear.  The staff will present their recommendation and a decision will be made.

Above, Rice held another fair on this past Saturday.  The public was invited to this event but at this time Rice had not secured necessary approvals to hold such events.  This image was taken in the morning as they were setting up.

Rice had reinstalled his sign, also not yet approved, for the Saturday fair.

The white “sculpture” was actually a left over from a prior owner.  But the signs leaning against them are part of Rice’s instructional materials.

Later in the day, as they were closing up, I went by again on my way home.  Numerous vehicles were parked on the grass in the area where he wants to put an 18-car parking lot (original drawings submitted by Rice showed 38 cars).

I suppose out in the boondocks, where Rice has other energy centers, parking on fields is commonplace.  But not so much in residential neighborhoods.
The meeting is to begin at 1:45pm this afternoon in room 208 of City Hall.  I suspect the staff will recommend denial of the request and the Board of Public Service will agree.  If so, Larry Rice can appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment.  Conversely, if NLEC gets their conditional use permit an aggrieved citizen can appeal to the Board of Adjustment.  I’m sure the citizens in the area will appeal if Rice prevails today, the big question is what will Rice do if he loses?

Additional Notes from Hearing on Energy Center

Yesterday’s meeting on the conditional use application for the Energy Center to be operated by the New Life Evangelistic Center was interesting to say the least.  To clarify, it was only about the zoning for the use of the former florist shop & greenhouse.

Larry Rice spoke on behalf of his plan for the property, calling for “healing” between the white and black communities in St. Louis.  He commented that at last week’s informational meeting there was not a black person in the room (true) — implying this is some sort of white bias I guess.  Interestingly, the first person to speak against the energy center was a black homeowner that lives across the street from the property in question.

Rice, at one point, indicated the property looked better than it did a year ago.  This is certainly true, I’ve known the place since 1994 and it has never looked better.   Rice said the neighbors loved the improvements they had made, that they had cut down high weeds and fixed broken greenhouse glass that was inherited from the previous owner.  But Rice only bought the property in July of this year — after improvements had been made and grass cut.  The previous owner, Susan Jansen, is one of his supporters and she was seated in the row behind him.  His remark confirmed my suspicion — Rice bought the property last November but in Jansen’s name rather than New Life Evangelistic Center.  He views the previous owner as the one Jansen purchased it from.

A Post-Dispatch story posted yesterday following the meeting with a headline “Residents mad about Rice’ center” included this near the end:

After the hearing, Rice said he was dismayed at his opponents’ anger that’s built up over the last month.

“I’m  sensing a hostility directed at homeless people I haven’t seen in 35 years,”  said  Rice.  “I  grieve over the bitterness and fear I’m seeing in south St. Louis.”

Today the online version drops the above.  The new headline is  “Rev. Rice gets hammered by Dutchtown residents at hearing.”  New in this version is:

The property includes a former flower shop with a greenhouse and the house next door. Rice bought them over the summer for $216,000.

Rice said if he doesn’t get the permits, he’ll appeal the city’s decision. He said if his appeal fails, “we’ll use it as transitional housing or low-income housing.”

Terrell Eiland, a zoning specialist with the St. Louis department of public safety who chaired the hearing, said that Rice would need another permit to operate the property as a residence for multiple people.

Again, just to clarify the property that was under consideration for a conditional use permit yesterday was only the storefront and greenhouse — not the old frame house and open land.  Ironically Rice has said numerous times that you can’t house people in a greenhouse — it is too hot.  Certainly a logical statement.  So would he invest additional money to raze the storefront and greenhouse to build some sort of group home?  Doubtful.

Following the meeting Ald. Kirner asked me how everyone did.  I agreed that everyone, including her, did a good job.  I thanked her for withdrawing her prior support.  Still, I don’t think even Larry Rice should be subjected to our changes with the wind form of approval/non-approval from our elected officials.  This is not to say that Kirner should support the project because she earlier expressed support.  But while claiming that she must listing to constituents now, why weren’t they consulted before?  Conditional use zoning for any business that brings in large quantities of people to a residential block is something that at least the owners on that block need to be consulted on before approval is given.

A question that remains for me is if the city will allow him to operate his “energy fair” that he has already scheduled for October 27th from 10am to 2pm?  This is probably a question for our new public safety director, Charles Bryson.  Maybe it should go on — it would make an interesting backdrop for a protest along the public sidewalk in front of his property.

Blogging From The Conditional Use Hearing On Energy Center

This post is regarding the conditional use hearing for Larry Rice’s Energy Center in the Dutchtown Neighborhood (see prior post). I’m blogging from the meeting as it is underway. Updates will be added below in reverse order (oldest at the bottom).

10:10am: People are still talking outside the hearing room, reporters were getting quotes. I’m signing off now for a couple more meetings — I’ll have more later today.

9:55am: Post meeting notes. The opposition was strong. We all signed a sheet that we were hear to speak against the conditional use so it could be submitted since we were not all able to speak. The conditional use was only on the storefront & greenhouse — not the full property.

9:40am: Testimony is concluded. A decision will be reached later with the answer being mailed out.

9:33am: Ald Kirner withdrew her prior support.

9:31am: Only five people have been allowed to speak. The city’s staff person indicated that no further testimony will be taken. Many took off work to come to the meeting but they will not be heard. Ald. Kirner gets the last word before Rice.

9:26am: Downtown Dutchtown president Caya Aufiero spoke in opposition. I’ll provide a copy of their well-worded later.

9:21am: One person spoke in favor the energy center. Opposition is now beginning testimony starting with a neighbor across the street.

9:19am: City staff person raises issue about Rice’s sign for the business which has already been posted. He asks Rice if he has applied for a sign permit. Rice indicates he has not applied for a sign permit.

9:15am: Larry Rice indicates he has traveled all over the country taking classes on alternative energy. Has taken “8 courses” at the Solar Energy Institute.

9:10am: Larry Rice is now presenting his case.

9:05am: Representatives of both the Mayor’s office and the President of the Board of Aldermen are among the audience.

8:50am: Hearing is underway with other items on the agenda. The room is not full but there are more people here in opposition than in favor. Alderman Kirner is sitting among those opposed. The process is one person from the city asking questions of the applicant, the proceedings are audio recorded. Following the applicant there is a chance for anyone else supporting the application to speak. Then opposition gets to have a say. The applicant and one person from the opposition can speak briefly to close. The interesting thing is the opposition is not a collective group but simply a bunch a individual home owners — not sure how one person will be selected. More as it develops.

Hearing on Zoning Request for Energy Center Thursday AM at City Hall

Those who support and oppose the conditional use zoning request of Larry Rice’s Energy Center in Dutchtown will have their say Thursday morning at City Hall (8:30am in Room 208). At issue is whether or not the city should grant Rice’s request for occupancy of the former Held Florist building which is in the middle of the 47xx block of Tennessee Ave, an otherwise residential street (see prior post).

Rice did a mass mailing in the area (presumably to property owners) to gather support (view PDF of letter).

The following is the most relevant paragraph from the letter:

Above, Rice admits to being ignorant about the basic concept of zoning and occupancy — something every purchaser of real estate should investigate. But are we really to believe that he made an innocent mistake given that he bought the property from a close friend and supporter? While I can offer no evidence it is my belief that Susan Jansen acted as a straw party to purchase and renovate the 1950s storefront and greenhouse. Once ready to open as the Energy Center, the deed was switched to the New Life Evangelistic Center. There is nothing illegal about this —- in fact it is done all the time by entities that wish to acquire property and not be noticed by using their name initially.

Rice probably figured that had he simply put an option on the property contingent to obtaining conditional use zoning for his operation that opposition would have been high and he would not prevail (a likely outcome in my estimation). So instead he gambled and figured it was better to make it look like an oversight — by not knowing the process. Indeed, many do not know. An innocent mistake?

Once again Rice is indeed using wrong words to describe the zoning. He indicates in his letter that “the zoning on it had changed to residential.” Wrong. I’ve been unable to find out prior zoning for the area but most likely it has been a residential zone for some time — at least a decade. The trick was that while the Held Florist was still in operation it was grandfathered in — allowed to continue as what is known as a nonconforming use. Rice continues, “there will be a hearing to change the zoning back to commercial.” Wrong again. The hearing is about a conditional-use permit to allow him to operate as a nonconforming use in a residentially zoned area — not permanently change the zoning.  In fact, the city cannot legally change the zoning on a single parcel to a classification different than anything around it — that is known as spot zoning.

The hearing is Thursday 10/18/2007 at 8:30am in Room 208 (aka The Kennedy Hearing Room).  If you wish to share your views with the NLEC on this issue you can call the number listed in the letter (314-421-3020).  Alternatively you can email Larry Rice at larrywrice@yahoo.com.

City Values Vacant Land Higher than Land With Buildings

As a REALTOR® I tend to have some basic assumptions about the real estate market. One of those is that a building and land is worth more than the land without a building. Even if the building is in poor condition, it still holds some value in my view. But apparently the people at the St. Louis Development Corporation — the entity that is responsible for property the city owns — thinks differently. Here is how they describe themselves:

The Real Estate Department of the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) documents, manages, maintains, markets and sells agency-owned vacant and abandoned buildings and property.

In some St. Louis area neighborhoods, it will cost you more to buy a vacant lot than it will to buy a lot with a building. Let’s compare a two-family building in poor condition on a 25ft x 125ft lot with a similar 25ft x 125ft lot that happens to be vacant (with the intent for new construction). Oddly enough, the vacant lot is more costly than the building and lot in some cases. For example, based on SLDCs price list, the example building and lot in Benton Park would be $3,000 while the vacant lot (of the same size) would be $4,687.50 — 56% more than the same size plot of land with a building! Their for sale list turns up one vacant building but 19 vacant lots (of various sizes) in Benton Park. In Benton Park West the prices are quiet a bit less at $2,000 for a two-family and only $1,562.50 for a 25ft frontage lot.
If we head up to the north side of the city where many lots are vacant we see a similar situation.  In the Hyde Park neighborhood the two-family would be $1,000 while the same size lot sans a building is $1,250.   Over in The Ville the two-family will cost you the same as Hyde Park but the lot is only $937.50.  In the St. Louis Place neighborhood, where Mr. Paul McKee has purchased quite a bit of private property, the two-family would be $2,000 while the vacant lot $2,343.75.  The building prices are per unit so a single family house on the same 25ft wide lot would be half as much as I indicated above.  So in St. Louis Place a single family home owned by SLDC would only be $1,000 but the land of the same size would still be $2,343.75.

Their price list was last updated in March 2006.  Maybe SLDC has a formula based on the availability of land vs buildings?  Perhaps the idea, and a good one, is to price buildings attractively to encourage their reuse more rapidly than of vacant land?  I just wasn’t expecting to see vacant land with higher selling prices than land and a building.  Given this practice, I can see why some people might favor demolition —- they get the impression from the city it increases the value of their land.