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. 

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. 

As someone who enjoys Starbucks and lives north of this intersection, it’s usually a mad dash across the street with dog or baby in town, hoping I don’t get creamed by a car. Lovely.

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.

I don’t get why you’re always so sanctimonious.