More Unnecessary Demolition Coming to What Remains of Downtown St Louis
I couldn’t make it to the Preservation Board meeting on Monday night. I understand they approved a request from the Roberts Brothers to demolish two structures on the corner of 10th & Locust to clear the way for an auto circle drive and hotel entrance. Highly unfortunate!
Downtown St Louis already has holes everywhere — this will be yet another. The building on the corner has been altered so much over the years that it is no longer considered a “contributing” historic structure. What it does do well is hold the corner.
I don’t have a problem with the demolition if we were getting some of equal or greater massing where the existing buildings now stand. But a circle driveway? Two curb cuts along 10th street to contend with – adding to the challenge of passing this way in a wheelchair. Just north of this site on 10th is a parking garage where pedestrians have to really watch for cars. We continue to erode our downtown – favoring motorists over pedestrians.
From the windows of this new hotel guests will be able to see into the 9th Street Garage that sits on the half block that contained The Century Building for, well, nearly a century.
I love the idea of remaking the taller building on the block into a hotel. I rather like tall, narrow boutique hotels:
In urban cities like Boston they don’t sacrifice their street corners for circle drives. This hotel is mid-block. It doesn’t need a big circle drive to survive. Neither does a boutique hotel in downtown St Louis.
Our city is what we make it to be. We’ve pretty much guaranteed that we’ll never return to wonderful urban densities of pedestrians on the sidewalks and mass transit transporting large quantities of the population. Each year it seems we take steps further away from being a wonderful walking city to one overrun with cars.
Further Reading:
- Vanishing STL
- Ecology of Absence – Jan 2006
- Urban St Louis Forum
- Downtown St Louis Business
- Preservation Board agenda item
Every time I get to feeling good about our city a decision like this comes along to make me question my decision to remain in St Louis rather than move on to places where the sidewalks and transit vehicles are crowded with people. Here we simply have crowded highways.
I agree completely . . . but howelse could you build the cool (and likely required) rooftop pool and deck? 😉
One is reminded of the circle drive at the Chase complex. Not, I suspect, a coincidence.
Did my 8 year old do that sketch?
You can’t give ’em too much detail – you might actually have to build what you originally promised!
Steve,
It was either this or take up 1/2 a block with valet parking, and we know how you feel about that one! Kidding aside-this is a poor excuse for demolition and its obvious that our local government isn’t doing enough to exercise some modicum of restrictions as to setbacks and street facade requirements.
When people live in cars they favor highways, parking lots, cheap gas, etc., not historical structures. Pedestrians, interactive-involved citizens, historians, etc. respect the value of infrastructure that support interaction and sustainable progress. What Danforth reported on the Arch grounds is true about the whole region ruled by leadership that favors cars over people: the area “is dominated by the sounds and smells of the vehicle traffic… pedestrians are required to cross three lanes,… high curbs, lack of ADA ramps, narrow sidewalks and low safety rails”.
– –
Even Prop M isn’t supported in a manner that addresses these key issues but rather by BPV owners who are concerned about their revenues and expenses, not what’s best for a region.
Why do expect anything different? Your suppose to worship the New 64, get with it.
These buildings like every other building in a commercial were once new and built for a thiving city for the sake of making someone a buck. It was even done without tax credits once upon a time. That being said. I have no problem with replacing buildings even as I come to appreciate what is a better design for its surroundings as well as the importance of density in an urban core.
Since moving to St. Louis all I hear is that demolition is the worse outcome you can have in a business district and that historic buildings will make this a thriving city again. Sorry, don’t buy that argument. Tax policy, infrastructure, as well as whole host of other topics are on the minds of businesses and developers. This area has some huge reforms to make before filling the numerous empty shells already existing. Let alone infill. Getting the Robert brothers to buy up the property, keep old and building new at the same time (hopefully with a strong design as well as hotel roof top pool!) is a plus that will make this a thriving business district.
The building on the corner of 10th and facing Locust was at best an eyesore. I cannot imagine a reuse for it and I never heard a good one come out of anyones mouth. I say good riddance to that seemingly useless structure. I too would like a more dense environment, but the reality of the car is still with us and the design showing seems a bit suburban and dare I say ugly, even for somethng as utilitarian as a driveway.
.
On a good note work has begun in its across the street neighbor, the Farm and Home savings building. Now that one will take some creativity to make interesting. A 60-70’s remake of that building rendered it beaten with the ugly stick.
.
While I am in total agreement with the expansion of Metro and the encouragement of better mass transit, 10th street should be a medium to heavy used corridor for vehicular traffic, as you can exit Hwy 70 on 10th and have direct access to 40/64. In addition there are two parking garages, several parking lots. 10th also passes by 10th street Italian (a favorite of mine), City Grocers, At&t, Kitchen K, the new Mosaic, The Federal Building, KSDK, The soon to be located Left Bank books DT, and of course the new Synidicate. I am leaving out others but this has seemed like an underutilized corridor for cars. I am sad that this is the best idea for that corner but happy 10th is getting a new address to the already impressive array of services and function found on it.
.
I like that the Roberts Bros., have gone ahead with the projects they intended to build DT and infuse life along the should be busier for both cars and pedestrians, 10th street. Now I wonder when we can take down those barricades in front of the Synidicate.
^
David Slay purchased the building at 923 a few years back for a pub-restaurant, but ended up having to sell it after he had some financial difficulties. That would have been an ideal use for the building.
Remove the Tudor facade, and there are even more possibilities. Re-using the building is preferable to a street wall-disrupting driveway. Just walk a few blocks east of 923 to the “U.S. Bank Plaza” to see how great that looks.
With a little creativity, these buildings can be saved and put to good use.
That driveway/plaza area looks pretty small to me. It looks barely large enough to hold three cars. It seems the real objective is to not create a plaza/driveway, but rather to expand the ground floor area of the hotel, allowing for a larger lobby, restaurant, retail service, and bar area. Smart move.
.
Getting more tourists/travellers into this part of downtown will generate more pedestrian traffic emanating from the hotel.
I just about fell out of my chair laughing upon viewing the “artist rendering” of the new entrance, but I can’t say I will miss either of those current buildings coming down.
The applicant arrived with a new and somewhat better design, replacing the one Steve has posted. And the applicant testified that it is considering a different use for the space, if it can figure out how to make the alley work.
One argument I had not considered before had to do with the new use proposed for the Design Center as a hotel. Had the middle building not come down, too many of the rooms in the Indigo would not have had windows. I can’t imagine that there is much call for such rooms.
I am confused. Why do both buildings need to come down? The building on the corner would be perfect for a gastropub with a rooftop patio. Why not limit the tear down to one building and keep the tudor style building? Won’t the people staying in the new hotel want a place to eat? Convert the corner building to a gastropub with a good, adventerous chef at teh helm and I think you’d see a better use of the land.
Tearing down both just seems like a waste and small thinking.
Shoulda stayed in the 5th ward fightin’ the good fight. Jumped out of the fryin’ pan or something right? You’re now in the belly of the beast you betcha.
Great example from Boston, Steve. It puts into perspective just how behind the curve St. Louis is when it comes to urban sensibilities.
For all the critics of the plan to tear down these buildings, are you saying you’d rather see no project and the buildings preserved?
.
This is the Robertses project, not yours. They are investing their money. They are taking the risk. And they have defined their proposal. They are successful businessmen and hoteliers.
.
Anyone can say what they want. But would you rather them walk away, and save the site for someone else to do what YOU want? Or would you rather have this project, now, in this bad economy?
.
Ask a construction worker, and guess what he or she would say. Ask an architect working on the project, and guess what he or she would say.
.
As a frequenter of downtown, I can say that I’d much rather have an attractive, mid-rise hotel on this corner than the vacant eyesore which has stood there for well over ten years.
Northside neighbor… the mentality that “something is better than nothing” is what has systematically dismantled our rich urban fabric over the last half-century. Where is the imagination?
I applaud the Roberts Brothers and their ongoing commitment to the city, and ther are far worse examples of wasted opportunity than the buildings in question here. The overriding issue is that our dense historic building stock is St. Louis’s biggest competitive advantage over newer cities that have long since passed us by, yet all too often we view them as liabilities rather than assets.
Northside-
The bigger issue is not whether the buildings were salvageable, but instead why they decided to pull back from the street and corner to make an autocentric drive area. Instead they could have increased the lobby and subsequent upper levels even more by building closer to the street and keeping more in plane of the adjacent building and the one it is replacing. I hope what publiceye is saying is true and they are looking at other design options. If they did decide to keep an offstreet drive area it would be nice to see the upper levels pulled to the street so it was covered- similar to the hotel by the mansion house.
the economic logic can be spun in a number of ways. At a time when downtown has a glut of hotel rooms and the city risks its own funds in a potential bailout of the Renaissance project, the idea of adding another hotel seems sheer lunacy. The Robert brothers seem barely able to adequate maintain their existing hotel and see at a standstill over most of their downtown projects. (yes, I know they have broken ground on the new tower project..) in fact, one could make a strong argument that in this time of the credit crisis, what downtown doesn’t need is another elephant project but the sort of smaller, manageable projects that these buildings represent. If the robert brothers had craig heller’s vision and work ethic, these buildings would have been redeveloped long ago, with the sort of small-scale charm that Steve’s pictures illustrate.
Many preservationists oppose this type of “preservation,” but there is a lot to be said for retaining facades and building behind them as a last-ditch effort. Facade preservation should never be a first option, but in many cases as a last resort allows for resolution of floor height issues while retaining existing urban streetscape rythym. Such a plan may be hard in this case, but the corner building is about the same height as the proposed addition and cleaned of stucco might be integrated into the design without much difficulty.
Steve’s main point (“Each year it seems we take steps further away from being a wonderful walking city to one overrun with cars.”) explains why inferior designs become commonplace. Buildings with potential to enhance while simultaneously preserving historical value become easily replaceable in a region overrun with cars. all for a big circle driveway.
– –
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting his point, but even Danforth can’t make inroads in educating a public hooked on expensive, unsustainable and self destructive transportation designs. The final minivan will roll off the assembly line today at the Chrysler plant in Fenton and some dependencies die harder than others. Drivers here expect a big circle drive and even Forest Park is turned into a large parking lot on weekends, it is the Lou. Yes I miss the crowded sidewalks filled with people celebrating-enjoying life and catering to autos too often ruin that potential.
“For all the critics of the plan to tear down these buildings, are you saying you’d rather see no project and the buildings preserved?”
.
no, i’d like to see a BETTER project that preserves the buildings.
.
st. louis is rich in history. if we were smart we’d be capitalizing on that history. walk around DTs like boston, new orleans, savanah GA, richmond VA and you can FEEL the history. walk around downtown st louis and you feel surface lots. rather than demolish these buildings we should be telling their stories! that building on the corner dates back to the civil war (so i’ve heard). it would be much more interesting to tourists as a revamped bar/restaurant than a driveway. put a plaque out in front detailing its history – like they do ALL over virginia, by the way – and passers by get a feel for the history of our great city. THAT is what makes a city interesting, not another f**king autocentric hotel.
rooms lost because of lack of windows could be regained on the front wall of the middle building and in an interior atrium. lots of hotels have rooms facing atriums and don’t seem to suffer from it. a porte cochere could be built along the alley. a creative architect can overcome all of the supposed problems associated with these two buildings, but it might be more expensive, and [gasp] it might require the hotel to be atypical. the cost to the walkability of the street and the future vitality of downtown is worth it.
so, the roberts brothers have money. food for them. that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to dismantle our city and violate the logic of good urban design. the benefits of walkability and consistency of streetscape have been demonstrated time and again. our own city leaders drool over things like the loop and the loft district, portland and boston, and turn a blind eye to the design principles that make those palces successful when handing out concessions to the first looter to come forward with a proposal and a budget.
yes, no development would be better than tearing down these buildings for a circle drive in the long-term viability of downtown. selling ourselves out for a little bit of immediate investment is a stupid way to build a viable city. why haven’t we learned this with all of the bad development that already exists?
I think the existing buildings could have been converted into a sensational entry to a new hotel or any other use. I’m not necessarily against all tear downs, in fact many times there is an improvement, but St. Louis has turned demolition into an art form.
While I have to congratulate the Roberts Brothers in general, I think on the other hand I am disappointed in their inability to find cachet with the artistic, urban community. In other words, for the most part their urban planning sucks.
I expect visionary architecture from the black community.
It is as beat poet Gary Snyder said (I think it was in his book Earth Household) that African Americans will be the saviors of America.
In many ways (as an old 60’s guy and Vietnam combat Vet), I believe that is true.
So the Roberts Brothers have failed the test of the inclusion of the community and of leadership in urban planning, the result is this needless demolition and the usual average to poor architecture as a replacement.
The thing to remember is that architectural design and art is important. Architect Frank Gehry’s Bilbao museum in Bilbao, Spain is a great example of a building that literally rebuilt a city and an economy, one building, only. The impact has been world wide.
The meek, anti-visionary, anti-intellectual political and corporate leadership of St. Louis has failed once again. How much more are we going to take?
“so, the roberts brothers have money. food for them. that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to dismantle our city and violate the logic of good urban design”
In St. Louis the logic of good urban design is in no way enumerated into law. Insofar as they pay their dues they can do whatever they want with these properties.
I have reached similar conclusions on the lack of vision in the Roberts Bros. developments. I applaud the risk and the activity, I try not think that just because I don’t like it, it isn’t any good. The point has been lost on me about certain structures, I truly don’t appreciate some, even though I love architecture as an art form and socialogical gauge of priorities.
.
I have pondered the conclusion that Vince Shoemehl submitted in regards to the growth of Boston and San Francisco as it relates to mass transit infrastructure and development. Is it that simple? If we would have built a BART system here back then, we would have seen a sustainable growth pattern in St. Louis? While it was a bit more involved than that in explanation, I am not convinced. It is however an interesting conclusion to reach, and will keep my small brain racked in its implications.
And I will vote YES on PROP M. I hope you will do the same.
We are not Boston. We are not Chicago. We are not NYC. We are St. Louis. We have our own unique challenges, our own economy, our own history and our own needs and expectations. We control our own destiny, partly through laws and governmental regulation, partly through political leadership (or a lack thereof), but largely through private (re)investment. And as many may have missed, Steve’s point was not so much that the two smaller buildings “must” be saved, but that “losing the corner” was/is the bigger sin: “I don’t have a problem with the demolition if we were getting some of equal or greater massing where the existing buildings now stand. But a circle driveway? Two curb cuts along 10th street to contend with”?
.
I agree. The two buildings, while likely still solid and somewhat serviceable, cannot and should not be viewed a sacred. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – not every old building can or should be saved. If they can, great. But if not, let’s focus our efforts on finding better replacements. We’re not, nor do we want to be, Historic Williamsburg. We need to have and support people, like the Roberts, who are willing to reinvest in our city, even in a challenging market. We need to have structures that work, both for their individual users and in the larger urban context. And these goals are not mutually exlusive. Will there be design mistakes made? Sure. But there will also be (hopefully) many positive additions.
.
So, in the interest of compromise, here’s another solution – turn the new part “inside out” – tear down the two buildings and replace them with a new structure constructed tight to the sidewalks on both 10th and Locust. And if it’s critical to have an off-street drop-off, create a porte cochere that runs from Locust north to the alley. Yeah, it would introduce one new curb cut, but it would be better than two, and around here, a covered drop-off beats a circle drive any day!
“Every time I get to feeling good about our city a decision like this comes along to make me question my decision to remain in St Louis rather than move on to places where the sidewalks and transit vehicles are crowded with people. Here we simply have crowded highways.” Unfortunately, Steve, it’s basic economics. IF the value of downtown land here were even half as high as it is in those other places, you’d be seeing more density, more people, more transit and fewer circle drives. People are willing to put up with the hassles of downtown Boston because they choose to; for whatever reason, many, probably too many, people find the hassles of downtown St. Louis simply aren’t worth either their efforts and, more importantly, the rewards. And it can’t be the weather or the tax environment – Boston’s worse, which is saying something. That leaves the things that make places great – interesting restaurants and stores, a fine line between urban grittiness and feeling mostly safe, urban educational institutions, and surprise and delight for both residents and visitors. Until we rediscover that spark, we’re going to be cursed with more of the same . . .
That leaves the things that make places great – interesting restaurants and stores, a fine line between urban grittiness and feeling mostly safe, urban educational institutions, and surprise and delight for both residents and visitors.
Sounds like downtown St. Louis to me.
that’s sad to hear. the street from philadelphia looks wonderful.
Nice rendering from the Roberts Brothers kids.
Tear down the 1st building on the corner, and keep the 2nd and 3rd.
Jim Zavist….don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Please keep boring us with your self-righteousness. Your passion is to be commended, your self importance is not.