Categories
Clearance Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board South St. Louis St. Louis Board of Aldermen

Aldermen and the Preservation Board

by Michael R. Allen

Anyone who attended Monday’s Preservation Board meeting may wonder if members of the Board of Aldermen have special legal powers to defy existing laws. Actions on two items from the agenda stand out:

3524 Victor: David Guller, owner of this magnificent home in the Compton Hill local historic district, replaced windows, cornice and soffit without a permit. He was caught by a neighbor and had to apply for a permit. Unfortunately, his vinyl replacements don’t meet the local district code and when Guller made an application for a permit on the already-done remuddling the city’s Cultural Resources Office (CRO) denied his application. He appealed to the Preservation Board, which denied the appeal. Guller agreed to rework his soffit and cornice to the liking of the CRO. But he didn’t want to replace the six windows on his front elevation, and somehow appealed the denial of his appeal.

How was this even possible? Legally, it’s not. The city’s Preservation Review Ordinance holds the Preservation Board’s denial of appeal as the final deliberation, after which a matter would go to court through lawsuit. Apparently there is an unwritten exception that Alderman Stephen Conway, Guller’s representative, used to secure a second hearing at last month’s meeting. Guller did not appear, and the Board voted again to uphold the CRO denial. The item re-appeared this month, and Guller as well as Alderman Conway testified in support of his supposedly appropriate vinyl windows. The windows have embedded muntins and a terrible flat appearance; at the least, he could have sought simulated exterior muntins. best of all, Guller could re-install the wooden windows that he removed on the front elevation and keep his vinyl windows on the side and rear elevations (private elevations under city law). But he has thrown them out.

The Preservation Board smartly voted again to uphold CRO denial. If the matter comes up again, perhaps someone who supports CRO should file suit against Guller and Conway for abusing the process!

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: The tides turned against 32 houses owned by Forest West Properties, a real estate corporation created by the Washington University Medical Center Redevelopment Corporation. Forest West sought demolition permits for all 32 and ended up receiving 22 permits, the staff recommendation of CRO. While last month’s consideration by the Board of the same matter met with widespread resentment of Forest West’s lack of a plan for and lack of communication with CRO.

This month, things had changed. Namely, Alderman Joseph Roddy’s name, absent from earlier deliberations, surfaced. CRO Director Kate Shea told the Preservation Board that Roddy had asked Forest West to buy the homes and tear them down for new construction. This fact is irrelevant to any discussion of the consequences of the demolition permit, the adequacy of their excuses for seeking one and approaches to preservation planning for these properties — but it seemed to carry weight. Never mind that only Forest West’s Brian Phillips testified in favor of demolition and that four people — Claire Nowak-Boyd, Anthony Coffin, Steve Patterson and myself — testified at length on the problems with the application.

The Preservation Board itself was diminished by the absence of members John Burse and Alderman Terry Kennedy (continuing his string of absences and becoming the third alderman in this story) and the departure of Melanie Fathman in the middle of testimony on this matter. Richard Callow recused himself after asking to split the vote on permits so that he would not vote on permits for buildings that a client was seeking to buy. For some reason, his suggestion did not go anywhere. So members Mary “One” Johnson, Luis Porello, Anthony Robinson and Chairman Tim Mulligan were left to vote. Johnson is the most uncritical cheerleader of demolition requests on the Board, with Porello often siding with her. On this matter, they were true to form with Johnson “complimenting” Phillips from the start. Robinson was oddly quiet; he would have been a voice of reason. Mulligan opposed the permits strongly last month but endorsed the staff recommendation this time.

In the end, the vote was 3-1 in favor of the staff recommendation to approve demolition of 22 buildings, with Robinson dissenting. Testimony from opponents was mostly ignored, unlike last month when it was led to enthusiastic discussion with Shea and board members.

What a difference an alderman can make!

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Historic Preservation Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Clearance On Monday’s Preservation Board Agenda

by Michael R. Allen

On the agenda for tomorrow’s Preservation Board meeting once again is the matter of the demolition of buildings owned by Forest West Properties in Forest Park Southeast. (Read all about last month’s attempt to get Preservation Board approval to demolish 30 buildings.) This time, the number of buildings is 32. This time, the Cultural Resources Office is recommending denying permits for ten buildings. However, the reasoning behind the ten buildings recommended is difficult to discern. It seems to have more to do with basic architectural features that with a comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. From a preservation standpoint, such reasoning may be logical but from a more holistic view it could end up producing dispersed vacant lots that diminish historic contexts appropriate for renovation and historic district designation without demolition.

In my testimony at last month’s meeting, I suggested a plan for ranking the buildings architecturally as a worst-case preservation strategy. In the absence of compelling plans for the buildings’ sites, the best case for planning still exists, despite what Forest West Properties says.

Since last month, a credible developer has made an offer to acquire over half of these buildings south of Manchester, in a pattern that would retain the remaining context there and may allow for a historic district to be created that would enable the use of tax credits.

As far as I know, Forest West has not responded to the offer except to immediately re-apply for preliminary review of the demolition. (The Board did not vote at last month’s meeting because, due to absences and recused members, only two members were able to vote so no quorum existed.)

Forest West needs to explore sensible redevelopment of these buildings and not continue in a mad rush to tear them down. There is still time to build a true redevelopment plan. Forest West knows a lot about waiting, because they have owned these buildings for over a year without coming up with any plans for redevelopment. All they can do now is take the easy way out with clearance.

Their best bet may be a sale to a developer with expertise at complicated urban development that is architecturally sensitive and at working in rebounding marginal areas. Demolition only will make things worse for the southern part of “the Grove.”

See the agenda for the meeting here.

Meeting details:
Monday, May 22 at 4:00 p.m.
1015 Locust Street, 12th Floor

Categories
Central West End Demolition Forest Park Southeast Historic Preservation North St. Louis Preservation Board Soulard South St. Louis

Preservation Board Meeting Leads to Good Decisions

by Michael R. Allen

Yesterday’s Preservation Board meeting yielded some good outcomes for the city. The Board was short a few members: Alderman Terry Kennedy, Mary “One” Johnson and Melanie Fathman. (Of course, the seat that gets filled by a member of the Planning Commission remains vacant.) That left board members John Burse, Richard Callow, Chairman Timothy Mulligan Luis Porrello and Anthony Robinson to deliberate on the full agenda for the evening.

The noteworthy votes included a vote on a sign, a vote on a storefront banking facility and the two demolition applications mentioned in this blog. The sign-related item was the application from Hammerstone’s bar in Soulard to restore the vintage neon Budweiser blade sign on the corner of its building (the restoration will involve major replacement). Staff at the Cultural Resources Office denied the permit because local Historic District standards for Soulard prohibit such a sign type without a variance, despite the fact that the sign pre-dates the historic district ordinance and the lifetimes of many of the people attending last night’s meeting. The sign has been in place on the building at least since the 1950s, and signs of its type date back to the late 1920s. St. Louis was a major manufacturing city for neon signs, and they are an important and lively part of the city’s architectural heritage. Steve Patterson spoke on the subject and passed around a book that included photos of local streetscapes in the 1950s with many similar signs. Currently, the Hammerstone’s sign is covered in Dryvit — somehow that is acceptable under Historic District standards. Thankfully, the Preservation Board unanimously voted to approve the application.

This vote was a great demonstration of what constitutes an appropriate variance. The Historic District standards no doubt intended to prohibit bad new signs, but in doing so removed the protection for existing historic signs that may not date to the “old days” of Soulard but have attained great historic significance in themselves. The standards also prohibit new signs that would be thoughtful. I appreciate the standards and the precautionary principle embodied within, but they are short-sighted on signage (as most local district standards are). Accumulation is the urban condition!

A unanimous vote to allow a walk-up ATM in the Central West End for a new National City Bank branch location was also a good thing that will hopefully encourage banks to use walk-up ATMs instead of drive-through lanes in the city.

I was very surprised that the Board ended up unanimously denying the demolition application for the Lutheran Altenheim Home in Baden. Few architectural historians had paid much attention to this wonderful institutional building, and in light of in-progress interior demolition, Cultural Resources head Kate Shea was resigned to only trying to guarantee salvage of architectural elements. Thankfully, Board member Callow asked one simple but important question: Had the owners, multi-state residential care facility operators Hillside Manor Property LLC, determined the presumably prohibitive cost of reuse? The answer, after staff of the company denounced the building for being too old and for having been built around, was “no.” The Preservation Review ordinance stipulates that there must be demonstration that the cost of reuse is prohibitive before the Preservation Board can approve a demolition permit — no matter how much far the demolition-happy Building Division has let the owners go. Callow moved to deny the application and the other members vote in favor of it.

The best part of the evening was the result of the consideration of Forest West Properties’ application to demolish 30 houses in Forest Park Southeast. I’ve written much about the application before, so I won’t go into great detail. Suffice to say that the climate of hostility toward preservation dissolved at the meeting. Before the meeting, I heard that a reputable developer has a strong interest in acquiring almost all of the 30 buildings, saving those on Chouteau and Swan if my source is correct. While I lack details about the developer and their plans, the potential interest is something that myself and Kate Shea mentioned at the meeting. Kate’s presentation was good, and included more reasons for preservation than for demolition — and, in fact, she reversed her recommendation by the end of the meeting and recommended denial of the permits. Apparently, her only contact with Forest West prior to the meeting were two short phone calls! Forest West sent a representative since director Brian Phillips was out of town. The representative discussed reasons for demolition, mostly involving the abuse of the buildings by people rather than building conditions. I spoke against the demolition, as did Claire Nowak-Boyd and Steve Patterson. We made great points, touching on how wrong the demolition was from the standpoints of urban planning, architectural and social history, neighborhood stabilization and economic development. Everyone worked well with each other, including Kate Shea, and by the end of the testimony a clear and multi-faceted case for preservation was made. (This is the sort of meeting that Jane Jacobs would have loved.) Oddly, due to Forest West’s affiliation with Washington University, Board members Burse and Porello recused themselves; Callow also recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest with a client. Mulligan and Robinson seemed very swayed by the testimony — Mulligan brought up Botanical Heights and called it a failure — but ended up deferring the matter due to concern over the lack of a voting quorum. Shea promised to deny the permit the next morning; hopefully, Forest West will take heed and look into selling the buildings rather than try some end-run through the Board of Alderman or Planning Commission (possibly difficult without a development plan, and Forest West’s representative said that the company has no plans to develop the sites itself).

What a great outcome! Hopefully, it opens the door for reconsideration of the demolition plans and our mystery developer will emerge with a solid plan.

The final agenda item was an appeal of a Preservation Board decision against very inappropriate modifications to a house at 3524 Victor. Apparently, upon being told that the law — and that is what the preservation ordinances are — prohibited his “choices,” the owner complained to his alderman, Stephen Conway, who made a fuss. Both should know better.

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: Vista Avenue

See Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast. Updated to show ultimate outcome of demolition permits.

4411 Vista (NO PHOTOGRAPH)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied.


4415 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied


4417 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4418 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied


4419 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied


4448-50 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved

4452 – 62 Vista (left to right). Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd).


4452 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4454 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4456 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4460 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4462 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd).
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4473 Vista
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4484 (left) and 4486-90 Vista
Photograph: February 18, 2005 (Michael R. Allen)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: Swan Avenue

See Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast. Updated to show ultimate outcome of demolition permits.

4429 (at right) – 4437 (at left) Swan Avenue. Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd).


4429 Swan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied


4431 Swan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4435 Swan (Rear)
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4437 Swan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: Norfolk Avenue

See Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast. Updated to show ultimate outcome of demolition permits.


4420 Norfolk
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4429 Norfolk
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Denied

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: Hunt Avenue

See Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast. Updated to show ultimate outcome of demolition permits.


4215 Hunt
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4247 Hunt
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4371 Hunt
Photograph: February 18, 2005 (Michael R. Allen)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: Donovan Avenue

See Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast. Updated to show ultimate outcome of demolition permits.


4365 Donovan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4367 Donovan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4369 Donovan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4371 Donovan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4375 Donovan
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Forest Park Southeast Demolitions: Chouteau Avenue

See Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast. Updated to show ultimate outcome of demolition permits.


4375-7 and 4379-81 Chouteau
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved


4395-7 Chouteau
Photograph: April 18, 2006 (Claire Nowak-Boyd)
DEMOLITION PERMIT: Approved

Categories
Demolition Forest Park Southeast Preservation Board

Massive Demolition Proposed in Forest Park Southeast

by Michael R. Allen

Frame houses on Vista Avenue slated for demolition.

Forest West Properties is seeking demolition permits for 30 buildings in Forest Park Southeast, and the permits will be considered at the Preservation Board meeting on Monday, April 24, 2006. Forest West is the real estate arm of the Washington University Medical Center Redevelopment Corporation and acquired these buildings from negligent owners. After a year of ownership and silence to the neighborhood about their intent, Forest West now emerges with a plan for demolition that would severely impact the neighborhood and may stunt efforts to rehabilitate its valuable historic buildings.

4437 Swan Avenue, slated for demolition.

There are good reasons to postpone the application for further review:

The demolition does not correspond to any approved redevelopment plan. Alderman Joseph Roddy (D-17th) earlier this year secured passage of Board Bill 400, which created a redevelopment plan for scattered sites in Forest Park Southeast. However, none of these addresses were included in Roddy’s bill.

At least 19 of these buildings are of strong to moderate architectural merit. Without a long period of public notice of the application, we have been unable to conduct thorough assessments of each building. A preliminary review of architectural style shows that 19 buildings are of high or moderate architectural significance as examples of vernacular styles prevalent in this neighborhood. Among the styles represented are brick shaped-parapet buildings from the period of 1890-1910, some of which are two stories tall, as well as front-gabled frame shotgun buildings from a period of 1875-1895.

The demolition will significantly impact the integrity of the southern part of the neighborhood and could preclude extending the National Register district boundaries. The southern part of the neighborhood, called Adams Grove, has been marked by significant demolition and deterioration. Further demolition may weaken historic integrity to the point where it would be impossible to extend the boundaries of the Forest Park Southeast Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A boundary extension would make historic rehab tax credits available for the many eligible historic buildings in the southern part of the neighborhood. Without availability of tax credits, rehabbing these historic buildings may be cost prohibitive.

None of these buildings needs to be demolished. While some are of low architectural merit and a few are inappropriate for the neighborhood (such as 4395-7 Chouteau), all of the buildings appear to be structurally sound even though they have problems common to structures of their ages. The masonry buildings in particular are similar to those in the neighborhood being renovated by Restoration St. Louis, RHCDA and other developers.

Residents of Forest Park Southeast have not been given the chance to review the application. Many residents have wondered what Forest West has been doing with these buildings, and have never received answers to their questions. Likewise, residents only learned of the application when the Preservation Board agenda was posted in mid-April.

We are amendable to working with Forest West to revise their plans, and encourage them to re-examine the thirty buildings for alternate possibilities. Other developers may be interested in purchasing the buildings for rehabilitation, especially if the boundaries of the Historic District were extended. Forest West could explore issuing of a request for proposals for the buildings. Most of these buildings are architectural assets to the neighborhood and to the city, and thus economic assets waiting to be renewed.

Buildings by Street

Chouteau Avenue: 4375-77, 4379-81, 4395-7

Donovan Avenue: 4365, 4367, 4369, 4371, 4375

Hunt Avenue: 4215, 4247, 4371

Norfolk Avenue: 4420-22, 4429

Swan Avenue: 4429, 4431, 4435 (Rear), 4437

Vista Avenue: 4415, 4417, 4418, 4419, 4448-50, 4452, 4454, 4456, 4460, 4462, 4473, 4484, 4486-90

Meeting Details

Preservation Board
Monday, April 24 at 4:00 p.m.
1015 Locust Street (northeast corner of 11th and Locust), downtown 12th floor