All night long crowds gathered to watch the last of Busch Stadium fall.
One thing occurred to me, I have never seen so many people on these sidewalks on a non-game day. It was nice.
Then it happened…
… Continue Reading
Following my post on Sunday entitled ‘Festivus vs. Rams’ I had a very good face-to-face conversation with a friend of mine that happened to have a different take than I did on the benefit of the dome on downtown. In short, he argued the early 1990s dome and convention center expansion was positive.
Again, he is a friend and I value his opinions. It was a good conversation, one that you can’t get from short blog posts and the subsequent comments. What I got from our conversation was a much different view on things than I have but also a better understanding of how someone might conclude this makes a positive contribution.
His view in favor of the dome went something like this:
Before the dome was built the area was a dump.
Tony’s restaurant was isolated.
The bus station wasn’t attractive.
Much of the area was just surface parking lots.
The dome & expansion cleaned up the area and gave it some physical form beyond random buildings and surface lots.
Without the possibility of football the city never would have done anything with the area.
The last bit is the key to our different perspective. I’ve been arguing what could have been instead of an expanded convention center & football stadium while others, like my friend, are of the belief that if we didn’t build what we have now we never would have done anything with the area. So at the very least the dome is positive in that it was something. Both perspectives are valid, neither is right or wrong.
Yes, had the convention center and dome site been left as-is the downtown area wouldn’t be the same, or as positive. And I’ll even go along with the idea the area could very well be sitting there the same (or worse) today had we not expanded the convention center and built the dome. If that were indeed the case then the loft district and other improvements in downtown would not be where they are today.
But, this is all assuming A) the convention center and dome were the only alternatives for the area and B) that nothing else would have gotten built in the last 15 years.
So bear with me oh great Rams fans. Step back to the mid to late 80’s when Bill Bidwell wanted his own stadium or he’d pull the football Cardinals from St. Louis (as it in fact did). What if we would have built a stadium on the Pruitt-Igoe site then? What if we had put the football Cardinals in Metro East along what was then a future MetroLink route?
Stay with me on this…
With a football stadium added to the region near downtown the current convention center & dome site in the early 90’s would still have been a mess with Tony’s the only ray of hope. But we wouldn’t have spent a few extra hundred million losing a team and then spending eight years trying to get one back. That time lost and effort spent was costly. Not that it would have actually happened but humor me and wonder if the convention/dome area had been remade into a vibrant part of downtown — keep street grid, new shops & retail, new residential buildings, more restaurants to compliment Tony’s.
What’s done is done. We have the dome and convention center already. It is better than the nearly vacant mess that was there because it adds people to the area. But, I still think, in hindsight, the area could have made a much greater contribution to downtown. The purpose of this exercise is not to beat up the people that made the decisions in the 50’s-70’s to raze buildings for parking or to make those that enjoy a Rams game to feel guilty about the area. No, the purpose is to learn what have we done in the past and why. What can we learn from this to help us in future decisions?
I want us to expand our thinking when it comes to new projects.
In many respects I believe we are still in a 1950’s “urban renewal” mode of thinking — that everything must be located downtown; that we must create neat & tidy districts of narrowly defined uses; that everything needs parking; and that a few big events or venues is better than blocks and blocks of smaller activities.
St. Louis, prior to the 50’s, had shopping, entertainment and workplaces spread throughout the city. These were connected both by streetcars and roads for cars. Downtown was the center of activity but it wasn’t where everything had to be.
The fact we placed the symphony hall on Grand rather than downtown in 1968 is a very good thing. But trying to build an arts and entertainment district around it and the Fox is a bad thing. We should have art, entertainment, sports, retail, restaurants, residences, and workplaces everywhere — not just in districts. But I’m getting off track, I’ll have to come back to this another time.
My main thought is when I post about a project not being the best or most urban it is on the assumption that we could have done better. I now know that some of you will have the assumption that as least we did something. Maybe I’m being too optimistic (or naive)? But just maybe some of you are not giving the region enough credit for being able to rebuilt the core into a world class city.
– Steve
Before I attended last Monday’s Preservation Board meeting my main problem with this develop was that it called for razing the derelict, but salvageable, Doering Mansion. During the meeting I got a closer look at the details of the final project and I didn’t like what I saw.
From the marketing literature:
“Compromising fifty-six townhouses on eight acres, Mississippi Bluffs is offered by Mississippi Bluffs, L.L.C. On the east lies the Mississippi River; to the west, a beautifully landscaped park. The townhouses have been thoughtfully designed, using the colors of nature with respect to this unique site. Two tiers of homes allow for the greatest embrace of the spectacular view, one built on the natural bluff, the other on a massive bluff extension.”
This glosses over a couple of problems, the “beautifully landscaped park” and the “massive bluff extension.” The open green we are used to seeing along the site will basically be reduced in half as the 32 “Hilltop” units will be much closer to Broadway. The new “bluff”, better known as a pile of fill dirt, will raise the grade substantially. This will necessitate the removal of many existing trees.
At left is the proposed site plan with the river along the top and Broadway along the bottom. The gray roofs shown in the middle are the “Hilltop” units built on top of artificial fill. A drive runs along the West side of these buildings to serve all 32 garages. Guest parking is provided along this drive.
Alderman Villa testified at the meeting that other developers such as Balke-Brown had proposed “affordable” apartments for the site while retaining the Doering Mansion. But Villa didn’t want apartments. A few neighbors & some folks buying into the project spoke that having townhouses was better than more apartments. Some noted problems down the street with current section 8 housing. They all spoke as though the only alternatives to the current proposal was going to be apartments. Hardly true but effective.
KSDK Channel 5 is reporting that well-known St. Louis developer Don Breckenridge has died of natural causes. Breckenridge has developed many hotels over the country but most recently he is known for the creative re-use of the Edison Brothers warehouse into a luxury hotel and condos.
Breckenridge was working on plans to renovate the long vacant Kiel Opera House. For more information on Don Breckenridge click here.
My sympathies go out to his family & friends.
– Steve
The Doering Mansion has clearly seen better days. Like thousands of nice but ordinary buildings all over the city this one has been allowed to slowly decay over a period of decades. Sadly, the ordinary building has no champion. We have the Landmarks Association which speaks up when… well… a landmark building is threatened. But we are a city of ordinary buildings. It is the streetscape of ordinary accented by the occasional landmark structure that gives our city its character and appeal. Raze enough of the normal, everyday buildings and the attraction of the city is lost.
My interest in saving the Doering Mansion is not that as a single structure it is historic, although by many standards it is. No, my belief is that we have lost all the ordinary run of the mill buildings we can afford to lose. In some areas, such as parts of North St. Louis and mid-town, we’ve razed too many buildings to have much appeal at all. Yet, we continue to raze buildings that are individually insignificant in the name of that old standby reason, progress. St. Louis has a preservation review ordinance for a reason, to examine the value of buildings before granting a demolition permit. Later today we’ll know the fate of the Doering Mansion.