SW Garden Neighborhood Association Didn’t Know About Preservation Review Process!

The Southwest Garden Neighborhood Association, where St. Aloysius is located for now, was unaware the City’s Preservation Board would make a decision on wether to grant the demolition permit or not. The association was told the Archdiocese was insisting the buildings be torn down. Some time back they gave their approval to the new home proposal.

I see this all too often, a volunteer association gives their approval for a redevelopment only because they think no alternative exists. Today they are realizing the process was not as it was explained to them.

First, we have the idea that it would be too painful for the neighbors if the church was reused. This is partially true, the neighbors don’t want any sort of institutional use on the site (either in the existing buildings or in new). This has some validity due to parking & traffic concerns on the narrow streets. But the question of Eastern half of the site being renovated with the Western half receiving new construction was never discussed as an option.

If the church really wanted the buildings razed why didn’t they apply to the City of St. Louis for a demolition permit? They didn’t do that, instead they sold the land and buildings intact to a private developer. This is now a former church owned by a private company.

The whole mess leading up to this smells of business as usual backroom politics. This is because the players involved know the proposal cannot stand on its own against the criteria of the City’s 6 year-old Preservation Review Ordinance. To get their way they had no choice but to manipulate the process in their favor. The staff recommendation to the Preservation Board for Monday’s meeting is not the staff recommendation they’d give without political pressure. This is the ugly St. Louis politics that disgusts me.

When it comes to renovating and attracting new residents to St. Louis we are our own worst enemy.

[UPDATE 12/17/05 @ 7:30PM – It seems the SW Garden Neighborhood Association gave their approval not recently, but back around April or May of this year. Those who have followed the church closings will note this and other churches weren’t “suppressed” until the end of June. The properties were then put up for sale. But the deal for the new homes was already done prior to the sale process. Basically, the opportunity for a rehab-minded developer to buy the properties never existed.]

– Steve

City Posts Agenda Regarding St. Aloysius Gonzaga

The City’s Cultural Resources office has posted the agenda for Monday’s Preservation Board meeting. This includes an application to demolish the beautiful former church complex known as St. Aloysius Gonzaga. Click here to see the detailed review of this loved complex and how the applicable Preservation Review Ordinance applies (including drawings of proposed houses and site plan).

Couple of facts to keep in mind:

From the enabling legislation: “Sound structures with apparent potential for adaptive reuse, reuse and or resale shall generally not be approved for demolition unless application of criteria in subsections A, D, F and G, four, six and seven indicates demolition is appropriate.”Subsection “A” & “G” are not applicable in this case. Subsection “D” does not warrant demolition because reuse potential does exist for the structures and the developer has not demonstrated any financial hardship. Subsection “F” also does not make demolition appropriate as the new project does not exceed the quality of the existing structures.
… Continue Reading

But Will It Pay For Itself?

Yesterday afternoon I attended the Metro South MetroLink study meeting in South County. This was the final public meeting to close out the study period. Public comment continues until January 6, 2006.

After a short presentation an old man asked about a number within the 2 inch thick report that showed the area currently has 2,400 bus riders. He questioned the need for the light rail and “would it pay for itself?” The presenter did a great job with the comeback, “No, it would not be the first in the country to do so.” This man ignored the estimated ridership numbers which were pretty good. Remember, our MetroLink system has continued to exceed expectations in terms of usage. But why pick on transit?

Do people ask if the billion dollars to be spent on the proposed Mississippi River Bridge will pay for itself? No. What about the hundreds of millions already allocated for the rebuilding of I-64/Hwy 40 in the next few years — will that “pay for itself?” I think not. These are all just taken at face value as something we must do.

Why the public continues to apply a different standard to public transportation than to the subsidizing of private auto transportation I’ll never understand. Is it the love of the car? Is it a generational thing?

Fuel taxes don’t pay for all our road building and repairs and we keep building more and more. So much more we are going to struggle even more to maintain our sprawling region. This is a formula for disaster. I say we abolish all fuel taxes and other means of funding road projects. Then we add up the cost of building & maintaining roads on a state by state basis. As you register your vehicle your mileage is recorded and you pay your share based on miles driven. The more miles you drive the more you pay. If you have a car but drive it rarely you pay proportionately less.

Once people start paying on a per mile basis you’ll see a major drop in driving. Car pooling will increase. Transit ridership would rise along with calls for more service. Sprawl would virtually stop. If only…

The best long term investment in public funds is not rebuilding I-64 or building a massive bridge. No, the best investment we can make is to connect more of our region through good public mass transit.

– Steve

The High Cost of Free Parking

UCLA urban planning professor, Donald Shoup, recently published a book entitled “The High Cost of Free Parking.” Looks like a good read. From NYC urban site “starts and fits”:

The issue of parking is looked at from many different angles in the book, all adding up to the same issue … free parking creates the “asphalt commons” problem. As parking is free, and exclusive, it is over used. This overuse creates numerous negative side effects.

For the full review click here.

Local book retailer Left Bank Books now has online ordering. This shows up as a special order book. The first chapter is available as a free PDF here. The list price is $59.95, typical of books from the American Planning Association. Ouch.

– Steve

What Happened To The Riverfront Plans?

Back in October we got a glimpse at four concepts for the St. Louis riverfront (previous post). Missing from the presentation were designs for the secondary areas in front of Laclede’s & Chouteau’s Landings. Also missing were estimated costs.

At the meeting, held October 11th, we were told the next presentation would be December 3rd on or near the Arch grounds. Well, it is now December 12th and I’ve heard nothing about a next meeting. Have you?

– Steve