Category: Northside Regeneration

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration

Post-Dispatch Gets it Wrong on NorthSide

by Michael R. Allen

Today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch carries an editorial on Paul J. McKee Jr.’s NorthSide project (“Next 90 days could set North St. Louis’ direction for decades”).

Among reasonable suggestions and enthusiasm for the potential of NorthSide, the editorial’s main purpose seems to be making the case that the city of St. Louis, pension crisis be damned, should guarantee some of the tax increment financing for NorthSide, and that McEagle should be given eminent domain latitude:

Financial guarantees from the city and the use of eminent domain are “hot-button” issues with the public, and for good reason. But there is every reason to think they can be resolved in ways that both impress potential investors with a prudent city commitment and protect the public.

Well, the Post-Dispatch has it wrong here. The absence of a city guarantee is the work of the office of Mayor Francis Slay, who is not exactly an opponent of the NorthSide project. The restriction on eminent domain that will likely be in the redevelopment agreement comes from Alderwoman April Ford-Griffin (D-5th) and her colleagues involved in discussions with the developer. Again, Ford-Griffin is a supporter of the project. Ford-Griffin’s ward comprises 80% of the proposed project area, and her constituents are up in arms about eminent domain. McKee says that he only wants 20 parcels through eminent domain anyway, although the developer has not provided a list. Disallowing broad condemnation rights on this project — which may take over 30 years to complete — makes sense. Life has to go on for residents while McKee is working on the Downtown West and Mississippi River Bridge landing phases of his project.

If public officials who support the project have placed limits on the public financing and eminent domain use for NorthSide, that’s for good reason.

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration

McEagle Explains TIF Request in YouTube Video


McEagle takes to YouTube again to explain the NorthSide tax increment financing request (TIF).

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration

Trojan Horse?: St. Louis Public Radio Examines NorthSide This Week

by Michael R. Allen

Today, St. Louis Public Radio aired the third story in its four-part series on the NorthSide project. Today’s story by Matt Sepic carefully looks at community concerns about eminent domain and relocation. Part of the story deals with the Trojan Ironworks, an active family-owned maker of steel beams and metal other building components, located in St. Louis Place. McEagle Properties’ Chairman Paul J. McKee, Jr. told an audience of north side residents assembled at Central Baptist Church on May 21 that he would not relocated a single job out of north St. Louis, but would bring many thousands more. Trojan may not have the resources to survive relocation. Sounds like the developer and the small iron works are on the same page.

The entire St. Louis Public Radio series is available online here.

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration

Revised NorthSide TIF Redevelopment Plan Online

The 55-page tax increment financing redevelopment plan for the NorthSide project is online courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Read it here.

Categories
Historic Preservation James Clemens House North St. Louis Northside Regeneration St. Louis Place

Clemens House Wall Collapse Highlights Continuing Neglect

by Michael R. Allen

Over a week ago, gaping hole appeared in the front yard wall at the James Clemens, Jr. House (1849 Cass Avenue in St. Louis Place). The cause of the collapse was structural failure, but the hole and its resulting brick debris attracted a truck load of thieves warded away by vigilant neighbors. Since the wall’s partial collapse, the hole has attracted photographer, a television news crew, concerned neighbors and property owners, thieves and — not surprising — no maintenance crews from Clemens House owner McEagle properties.

The wall remains breached, and the brick bats piled behind the breach right where they fell. When McEagle’s representatives talk about saving the Clemens House, what do they mean? A June draft of the revised tax increment financing (TIF) application for the NorthSide project showed an $8.6 million budget for rehabilitation of the Clemens House — in the project’s second phase with no item for repairs in the first phase — with 100% of the funds to come from TIF funds (at least prior to historic tac credit reimbursement).

While the final TIF application due out tomorrow may not include that line item, the draft idea is discouraging. What if the TIF does not pass the Board of Aldermen, or what if it passes without city backing and McEagle cannot monetize the TIF? The most pressing point is that there is no indication that structural issues like this fence failure or last year’s chapel wall and roof collapse will be abated before TIF funds are available.

This photograph of the wall that I took before the collapse shows the massive inward bow of the wall. The wall’s weight load was shifted askew. Additionally, the wall is tuckpointed incorrectly with a hard mortar, which forces moisture weeping through the bricks instead of the mortar joints. Over times, the bricks in the bow have split due to shifted weight load’s resulting stress, and have been weakened by the hard mortar. A collapse was building.

Of course, this is not the first part of the wall to fall. The limestone return of wall on the east is missing, all of the way through the corner at Cass Avenue.

There is also a partly-collapsed section in front of the chapel at this end. This section collapsed in 2005.

A central feature of the wall was the wrought iron gates, crudely removed by a thief after the Berean Missionary Baptist Association vacated the Clemens House in 2000. This photograph comes from the Landmarks Association of St. Louis and dates to 1980.

Here’s the reverse view in early 2008, showing the damage to the wall caused by hasty removal. My guess is that the thieves tied each gate to a pick-up truck, and pulled them off by accelerating. Perhaps the gates were mangled in the process and ended up in the scrap yard instead of the salvage shop. (Any dealer who accepted and then sold these gates deserves prison time, by the way.)

So now the Clemens House sits behind an unstable, damaged high brick wall missing its iron gates.

Once upon a time, back in 1860 when this silver albumen print was made, the mansion sat behind an elegant iron fence. The iron fence was low and afforded great views of the majestic house. The fence ended at the wooden fencing that surrounded the rest of the Clemens estate.

Preservation of the Clemens House need not retain the later brick wall, which suffers disrepair and obscured views of the house and its later chapel addition. One possible plan would be demolition of the later brick wall and replication of the original iron fence, would would reconnect the Clemens House to the Cass Avenue streetscape and surroudning neighborhood.

However, the fence plan would have to be made as part of a total preservation plan for the site that would take into account use of historic tax credit programs that come with review guidelines that may necessitate retention of the existing wall. To date, there has been no preservation plan produced for the Clemens House — no historic structures report, no structural assessment, nothing. Until McEagle produces a plan, the brick wall needs to be stabilized. The breaches should be closed, and the wall should be braced. If the wall comes down, that act should be planned.

For now, the gaping hole stands as naked testament to the lack of planning for the future of the Clemens House. I want the house to be saved, and I want McEagle to make preservation a priority that is not tied to the outcome of the TIF financing. The Clemens House remains one of the city’s most important 19th century buildings, and its fate truly is of regional concern. McEagle should fix the wall and then work on a serious preservation plan with stabilization work occurring in the first phase of the NorthSide project. Can you imagine a better good will gesture than prompt maintenance and early stabilization? Once stabilized, as the Mullanphy Emigrant Home demonstrates, a building will buy significant time for reuse planning. No preservationist that I know is hollering for McEagle to reopen a fully-restored Clemens House immediately. We just want to make sure than no part of it — including the chapel, which is not far gone despite visible damage — falls down.

Categories
Art North St. Louis Northside Regeneration

Northside Community Mural Proposal

by Anna Ialeggio

Dear Friends & Neighbors,

My name is Anna, and I live in the 5th ward. I have been following the McEagle developments with skepticism and trepidation. My frustration comes from the assumption that, in the name of progress, it’s all right to deny residents the right to participate in shaping their neighborhoods. I don’t believe that enough justification can ever exist to hand over the reins of half a city to a single private developing entity. Friends, we need to be honest with each other: this isn’t a choice that North City was given. This is a corner that North City was backed into. Now we’re in that corner, and we have to address the fact that development which doesn’t flow directly from the community will ever have the impact, dignity, or longevity that it ideally could. This is what worries me (quote from the Post-Dispatch 9/5/09, my emphasis):

Last month, the CBA held a meeting of its own, in a Cass Avenue church that’s on the eminent domain list. There were about 75 people there, most from the project area, for a talk about TIF and eminent domain and how to protect their rights.

At one point, the organizers asked for a show of hands: How many people had been in a room with Paul McKee? Had heard his plans from his own mouth? HAD BEEN ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS?

Three hands went up.

This is a challenge that we can rise to. I’d like to help my neighbors ask questions, make suggestions, tell their stories, in such a way that nobody, least of all Paul McKee, can dismiss it. This is where the idea of a mural comes in. I’ve got an awful lot of paint, and somebody out there has a big wall that could be dressed up. We’ve all got something to say, and we can work together to help each other figure out what it is and how best to say it. This might be especially great for a community center, church, or school. We can make something that will be a testimonial to the determination and creativity of our neighborhoods. Everyone has a right to be a part of the future of where they live…

Developers build DEVELOPMENTS.
Communities build COMMUNITIES!

Please get in touch if you’re interested, or have a suitable wall.

anna.ialeggio -at- gmail.com

Categories
Brick Theft JeffVanderLou Northside Regeneration

Brick Thieves Strike Again on Montgomery Street

by Michael R. Allen

The 2900 block of Montgomery Street has changed a lot in the last two years, and I covered the changes back in June (A Block of Montgomery Street Two Years Later.

Brick thieves have laid claim to the small house at 2946 Montgomery, shown in this 2007 photograph just to the right of the former North Galilee Missionary Baptist Church.

Here is a view of what the west wall looked like yesterday. While the other houses and church remain sound, the architectural context will be more diminished. The other side of the street is now down to two buildings, one of which has been fatally damaged by brick thieves.

On August 16, 2007, this block was the scene for a press conference against the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credit Act and bus tour of McEagle-owned property organized by State Representatives Jamilah Nasheed (D-60th) and Jeanette Mott-Oxford (D-59th) and Alderwomen April Ford-Griffin (D-5th) and Marlene Davis (D-19th). McEagle had already bought out most of the buildings on that block, making it a perfect example of a block that had actually become vacant and dangerous because of the developer’s acquisitions. (Coverage from the time: Urban Review and Urban Review STL Flickr.)

Times have changed, and some of the buildings are gone and two are on the way out. Also, the opinions of the elected officials involved with that event have changed significantly.

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration

NorthSide Press This Weeks Shows Support, Opposition

by Michael R. Allen

On Thursday, the St. Louis American published pro and con opinion pieces on the NorthSide project in its business section. The American has generally offered positive editorial encouragement, so this is a welcome and useful move on the paper’s part. The pro-NorthSide piece by Demetrious Johnson again is indicative of the wide swath of support that McEagle is building in the African-American community that opponents cannot ignore. The anti-NorthSide — or at least skeptical — piece by accountant Keith Marquard analyzes the first draft of the developer’s tax increment financing application and finds it lacking. I hope that opposition sticks to careful, fact-based analysis like this in the weeks ahead.

An article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch by Tim Logan, “Selling NorthSide: Slowly, steadily, McKee pitches plan to the neighborhood he wants to remake” (link to expire because the paper takes content down quickly), draws the focus onto McEagle’s outreach in north St. Louis. The article makes it clear that the developer — personified through Paul J. McKee, Jr. even though a corporation is the actual developer — lacks widespread support or opposition. The supporters quoted still have doubts and questions, and the opponents seem to support the general idea of developing the wide swath of north St. Louis while concerned with eminent domain.

The Post article corresponds well with the tone that I encounter in the affected neighborhoods — lots of skepticism, some support and some outright unbending opposition. Everyone wants better communication and more effective leadership from the aldermen and the mayor’s office. Few people seem opposed to the vision laid out by McEagle, just key details. Some who support much of the plan doubt the developer’s capacity amid a tough real estate economy, news of a foreclosure against McEagle at NorthPark and the scale of the plan.

The picture emerging in early September makes it extremely clear that the NorthSide project is most controversial in part, not in whole, and that the time is here for strong public-side leadership to shape and constrain the project. At this stage, the project is still a vision, and there are no redevelopment bills pending at the Board of Aldermen. It’s easy to change a bill before it is written — if public demand is clear and elected officials are ready to take the lead.

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration St. Louis Place

Existing Employment in St. Louis Place Should Be Retained

by Michael R. Allen

The website of St. Louis’ own U.S. Wiping Materials Company, Inc. boasts that the company “has been in business for over 100 years. Being centrally located in St. Louis Missouri has allowed us the ability to provide cost-effective shipping in a timely manner to all of North America.”

The central location for U.S. Wiping Material, manufacturer and distributor of towels, rags and wipers of all kinds, is a one-story brick industrial building at 2539 East Sullivan Avenue in St. Louis Place. Built in 1914, the building is a sturdy home to the company.

Next door to U.S. Wiping is the Bi-Angle Chemical Company, Inc. at 2531 East Sullivan Avenue. This plastics company is located in a handsome two-story Craftsman-style building built in 1916. The workforce is not huge, but workers can be seen all day on the back docks taking their breaks.

U.S. Wiping and Bi-Angle are located on a fairly deserted block between extra-wide Parnell Avenue and 25th Street, where Sullivan dead-ends at the Sullivan Place apartment complex. These companies’ building are located within the proposed boundaries of McEagle’s NorthSide project. While just outside of the boundary of one of the developer’s proposed “employment centers,” these employers may not be safe. A slide shown by McEagle on May 21, 2009 at Central Baptist Church shows these two building demolished. At the same meeting, McEagle chief Paul J. McKee, Jr. promised that McEagle would not move “a single job” out of the project area.

Of course, these companies might voluntarily sell to McEagle — but that would mean the loss of jobs in the heart of St. Louis Place, a move the developer says it wants to avoid. U.S. Wiping and Bi-Angle provide jobs, pay earnings and real estate taxes and hold down the fort on a lonely block. These companies and their buildings should be retained as part of the new development, not courted for departure.

To the south, Hopmann Cornice Company faces destruction for the NorthSide project (see “What Happens to Hopmann Cornice?”, June 3, 2009). Located on Benton Avenue between Parnell and Jefferson, Hopmann is located in a southern tail of the proposed “employmenmt center” and Benton Street is proposed for removal. While Hopmann employs a very small number of employees — as few as two at times — this is a family-owned business providing a highly specialized craft. The Hopmanns have survived in St. Louis Place since 1880, and their eviction would be a tragic end to a proud family legacy.

As a family-owned business, McEagle ought to be sympathetic to Hopmann Cornice and work around its small-footprint shop. After all, if the goal of NorthSide is to provide multi-acre business sites, how would retention of a 0.17-acre site impede any of the project goals? (The U.S. Wiping and Bi-Angle sites are 0.496 acres and 0.16 acres, respectively.)

Categories
North St. Louis Northside Regeneration St. Louis Board of Aldermen

An Update of Sorts on NorthSide

by Michael R. Allen

Dale Singer’s article “Questions still being raised about McKee’s north side development” (St. Louis Beacon, August 31) provides an update on the politics of this redevelopment project.

A few items jump out at me.

No Eminent Domain on Churches

Paul J. McKee, Jr. lays to rest one of the rumors circulating: that his companies plan to use eminent domain on churches. McKee says:

“We’ve bought some churches from people who want to sell them. If they want to sell them, we’ll buy them. But can you imagine asking for eminent domain for churches? That would be short of insanity. We spend a lot of time putting to sleep those kind of rumors.”

Indeed, many churches have voluntarily sold parcels and church buildings to the developers, and others are actively supporting the project. Those that remain could enjoy great benefits to their surroundings should the plan come to fruition. The origin of the church rumor was nothing more than the poorly-prepared list of parcels needed for the project that was released by the St. Louis Development Corporation. Seriously, that list looked less like a sinister plot than a cut-and-paste job with owner-occupied parcels removed and everything else retained without a final proofreading.

What Happened to the Forum?

McKee’s comments about McEagle’s removal of the public forum on his website is lacking. Here’s what the article reports:

McKee also defended the fact that a website for the project shut down an area where people could go on and make anonymous comments. He said the forum had degenerated and was not serving any constructive purpose.

In reality, McEagle moderated every aspect of the site. Julie Guignon at McEagle had to approve requests to set up an account on the board, and either Guignon or someone else deleted inappropriate posts. The only posts that were ever published were all thoughtful, intelligent requests for information or maintenance, and were made in response to leading questions like “What Information Do You Want to See?” posted by a site moderator. None of the suggestions or questions ever got a real response.

McEagle’s formerly open media strategy had received kudos from the St. Louis Social Media Report. As an often skeptical observer of the project and its public relations blunders, I was quick to praise the unconventional move.

Let me retract that praise and call the media strategy a bizarre failure. McEagle tapped into social media like no developer before, received praise even from long-time critics, posted some content and then…killed its own momentum (and new found good will) by closing up shop prematurely.

CBA Group Opposed to Any TIF?

The Northside Community Benefits Alliance seems opposed to any form of tax increment financing for the NorthSide project. Keith Marquand, the group’s treasurer, is quoted:

“Ronald Reagan had the saying, ‘Trust but verify,’ ” he said. “I don’t understand why we should have any basis for trust whatsoever. Look at the city’s record with TIF projects. … The city doesn’t have a very good record of enforcing agreements with developers.”

I think that McEagle has the votes to pass even a $410 million TIF through the Board of Aldermen. The TIF alone doesn’t upset me because I think that TIFs were designed exactly for the purpose proposed by McEagle: renewal of truly distressed areas. The real problem, of course, remains the scale of development, resident displacement and lack of solid urban design and historic preservation guidelines.

What is questionable, and what does not likely have a majority of aldermanic votes, is city backing of half of the TIF. After St. Louis Centre’s failure and the city’s wise refusal to grant backing to Ballpark Village, McEagle faces an uphill battle on that point.

Of note in the initial TIF application is that without city backing, the developer projects a 3.21% profit on the project, and with such backing projects an 8.21% profit. Hence, the project is still profitable without the city backing the bonds.

On the other hand, if the City of St. Louis had to pay $205 million should the developer default — and remember, no one assumed that Pyramid would ever fail — the city government would go bankrupt.