May Amphitheater On Leased Land
The west end of Kiener Plaza containing the Morton May Amphitheater was built long after the east end, the city only owns a small amount of the land, the rest of the west block is owned by the Southern Real Estate & Financial Co, presumably established by the May Co. Â The land is leased by the City of St. Louis.
– Steve Patterson
And the implication is . . . ? The city needs to acquire the land? (To have more control?) The lease should be terminated so a new building can be built? (More density and activity?) Do nothing? (If it ain't broke, don't fix it?) Give us a clue why you've stated this fact.
Just putting it out there. Since the original lease the May Co. was sold, not sure how the current owners feel about the land. Also don't yet know the terms of the lease. Ideally the owners would donate the land to the city.
If I could speak directly to the current owners: hold the line. Don't sell unless the city keeps the west end of Kiener similar to how it now is. The new plan for the East end is good and compliments the current western portion, but the plan for the West end is, well, not good. It takes what is a layered, useful and unique space and turns it into another flat plaza.
Steve, Gateway Mall Advisory Board: it's not too late to take back your recommendation/approval of the MVVA design plan. Save the May! And do something about the Twain park…then we'll be set through to Tucker.
May should donate it only under the condition that the city tears out that awful amphitheater (which I believe is the current plan).
Southern Real Estate and Financial Company was founded in 1903 and is one of the city's oldest downtown property owners. Southern Real Estate owns the 705 Olive (Union Trust) Building, for instance. Charles Cella has controlled the company for the last thirty years, and in the early 1970s and 1980s drove the city nuts trying to build a parking garage on the land where the amphitheater stands. City Hall decided that they could not allow him to block the Gateway Mall with a parking garage — although apparently and ungainly postmodern mid-rise was acceptable –and made the lease arrangement. Cella would not sell the land to the city.
Thanks Michael!
I hate to be “that guy,” but Steve, please learn to use semicolons. Almost every one of your posts contains some independent clauses linked by commas when there should be a semicolon or conjunction. Apart from its final 10 words, this entire post is a gigantic run-on sentence.
I don't mean any disrespect, but you may want to review your Strunk & White.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to pay closer attention.
As a relatively newcomer to the city, I had heard that the City allowed the One Gateway building because they had run out of money to develop and/or maintain the Gateway Mall. Does anyone know the real deal?
At one point three more half-block buildings like Gateway One were proposed, only one got built.
I'd like a post on that story, if you could, Steve, because it's become something of an urban legend how, in the midst of an overall Gateway Mall plan, a building was approved and partially constructed without so much as a “Hey, wait a minute…” thrown in its direction.
Secondly, I have to stress again that the amphitheater should be retained as a part of the Gateway Mall plan and the City+Arch+River plan. Please just try, for one summer/fall season, to have regularly scheduled (and regularly posted/advertised) amphitheater activities (on weekends and weekdays/nights). I think you'll find that, if done right, the amphitheater will prove to be an invaluable space in the center of downtown St. Louis.