Categories
Preservation Board Storefront Addition The Hill

Two Buildings on Southwest Avenue Threatened

by Michael R. Allen

In August, the owners of the historic Hill restaurant Favazza’s applied to demolish two buildings to the west of the restaurant’s building. These buildings are located at 5209 (right in the photograph above) and 5211-13 (left) Southwest Avenue. These are finely-detailed brick buildings that help define the street wall. Of course, the residential building at 5211-13 Southwest Avenue sports a fine storefront addition that extends the building to the sidewalk line. The original section appears on the 1903 Sanborn fire insurance map as one of the few brick buildings in the largely undeveloped area.

Although not in any historic district, the buildings are within the 10th Ward Preservation Review district. The city’s Cultural Resources Office has denied the demolition permits. The owners of the buildings have appealed. The proposed new use is unknown to this writer.

The Preservation Board will consider the appeal at its monthly meeting on November 23 at 4:00 p.m. (The meeting takes place downtown at 1015 Locust Street, 12th floor.)

Citizens can testify on the matter at the meeting or send comments to:

Preservation Board c/o
Adonna Buford, Secretary
1015 Locust Street, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63101

Alderman Joseph Vollmer
Board of Aldermen
Room 230
City Hall
1200 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103

Categories
Preservation Board Soulard South St. Louis

Cultural Resources Office Stands Up for House in Soulard

by Michael R. Allen

The city’s Cultural Resource Office (CRO) has published the final agenda for Monday’s Preservation Board meeting. CRO recommends that the Board uphold denial of the house at 1925-27 S. 10th Street in Soulard. The report clears up any doubt that Rehab Girls LLC is tied to developer Pete Rothschild. This action is inconsistent with Rothschild’s lauded track record on preservation.

Categories
Preservation Board Soulard South St. Louis

"Rehab Girls" Seek Soulard Demolition

by Michael R. Allen

The most troubling item on the October 26 agenda for the St. Louis Preservation Board is the only actual demolition permit on the agenda, for a house at 1927-9 S. 10th Street in Soulard. While any demolition permit for a perfectly sound historic building is troubling, this one is egregious. For one thing, the two-and-a-half brick house is located in a dense and stable part of one of the city’s most dense and stable historic districts. For another, the house at 1927-9 S. 10th Street is one of the number of remaining St. Louis buildings that appear in the pages of Pictorial St. Louis, the 1875 atlas by Richard Compton and Camille Dry. The simple brick dentils on the cornice indicate an age even earlier than the atlas — perhaps in the 1850s or 1860s, before wooden cornices began appearing on modest housing like this. Such buildings are rare enough that the Preservation Board should never permit their demolition.

What this writer knows about the back story here provides little clue as to why the owner, Rehab Girls LLC, is pushing demolition. In its fictitious registration of the name Rehab Girls, Rehab Girls LLC — registered through a third-party registrar — reported that Peggy Sheffold is Vice President and that the company office is the same as Rothschild Development Ltd., Sheffold’s employer. Rothschild owns a lot of Soulard property, including a corner mixed-use building directly north of this house.

Rehab Girls LLC purchased the house on South 10th for $50,000 on December 19, 2006. Recently, the house was listed for sale by Red Brick Management, a Rothschild company, with a $136,000 asking price. Since the purchase, there are no recorded building permits despite a full recent reconstruction of the cornice.

The work performed on the cornice indicates that the building’s brick work is fully repairable. Why Rehab Girls aborted the work and decided to pursue demolition is unfathomable. Soulard is a neighborhood that long has moved past dark days of demolition and on to significant infill construction. The “Rehab Girls” should stick to their name or sell this fine building. Meanwhile, the Preservation Board should deny the demolition request.

The Preservation Board meets at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, October 26 in the offices of the St. Louis Development Corporation, 1015 Locust Street, 12th floor.

However, citizens need not be present to submit written testimony. Testimony can be sent to the board via its secretary, Adona Buford, at BufordA@stlouiscity.com or care of the Cultural Resources Office, 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200, St. Louis MO 63101.

Categories
Mid-Century Modern Preservation Board South St. Louis

Encroachment Gives Cultural Resources Office Some Review Power

by Michael R. Allen

Today’s Preservation Board agenda contains an interesting preliminary review: the Cultural Resources Office (CRO) has jurisdiction over a poorly-conceived streamline modern industrial building at 4110 Beck Avenue due to review jurisdiction of encroachments in the public right of way. The false pilasters proposed to be added are encroachments, and CRO recommends denial.

The other changes, some also out of character, don’t fall under the CRO’s review powers and cannot be considered. Read the item here.

UPDATE: This matter was not on the final agenda.

Categories
Central West End Demolition Mid-Century Modern Preservation Board

Rabe Hall and Preserving Minor Mid-Century Modernism

by Michael R. Allen


On Monday, the Preservation Board by voice vote unanimously approved demolition of the St. Louis College of Pharmacy’s Rabe Hall at 4520 Forest Park Avenue in the Central West End. The Cultural Resources Office (CRO) recommended approval of the demolition permit, which was reviewed because the 17th Ward is covered by the city’s preservation review program. The demolition will clear space for — don’t hold your breath — surface parking. However, the College is the land to the Washington University School of Medicine and development of the site is likely. Much new construction has taken place on this block in recent years.

The western elevation of Rabe Hall.

Preservationists quietly conceded this loss, due to several factors. For one thing, the San Luis Apartments battle took a lot of activist work, and captured a lot of the will to stand up to a powerful institution over a modern building whose architectural merit has yet to be widely realized. People saw a “done deal” and let it lie.

Column near the entrance of Rabe Hall.

The timing of this post, I suppose, places me in the majority camp. However, I think that the demolition of Rabe Hall raises questions about the Cultural Resources Office and Preservation Board’s treatment of mid-century buildings.

Rabe Hall is not exactly a masterpiece. In fact, historian Esley Hamilton points out that the greatest significance with Rabe Hall is that it occupies part of the site of Grape Hill, estate of Edward Bates. The building dates to 1964, when Town House Apartments West, Inc. took out a permit to build a 64-unit apartment building. The cost was $401,000 and the architect was Bert Luer, about whose work little is recorded. The final occupancy permit dates to December 17, 1965 — not even 44 years ago. A 1977 building permit shows the owner as Washington University, making the conveyance cycle elliptical.

There are some charming features on Rabe Hall, especially the unique tapestry brick wall sections. The striking white columns and balcony walls are a fine contrast to that brick. Unfortunately, the yellow panels on the recessed walls replaced a more open fenestration that gave the building a more attractive look.

My point here is that Rabe Hall is not very old, its architectural pedigree is minor, and its design is not especially refined. Yet it is a handsome minor work of its period, has not outlived its functional life and is part of a cluster of modern buildings around the intersection of Forest Park and Taylor. The proposed use of the site is parking, not a new building.

What should CRO and the Preservation Board do in cases like this? We will get more chances to refine the approach, but it demands careful attention. Our proximity to the date of construction for Rabe Hall blinds many of us to later significance. Also, we are a ways off from developing a strong preservation approach to minor and workaday modern buildings, although historians have started to recognize the collective significance of districts of these buildings.

Across the street from Rabe Hall at 4545 Forest Park once stood the Parkway House Motel (1962), now demolished, and at 4511 Forest Park, a medical office building (1961) designed by California architect J. Richard Shelley. That office building raises the same questions as Rabe Hall. The one change, of course, is that now it is the last minor modernist work on the block. Strike three?

One block east on the south side of Forest Park is a building owned by Washington University more clearly worthy of protection. The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers Workmen of American Local 88 built the building at 4488 Forest Park in 1957. The renowned modern master Harris Armstrong designed the $100,000 clinic.

The two-story building expresses great architectural originality, is the work of a master and is over 50 years old. Clearly, there is eligibility for both City Landmark and National Register of Historic Places designations. I would expect CRO to deny any demolition permit for this building. A strong individual work, the building benefited from the presence of modern buildings its construction encouraged. Most of that context will be gone soon.

Categories
Historic Preservation Preservation Board

Window Business

by Michael R. Allen

People who attended Monday’s St. Louis Preservation Board meeting might have expected a proposed demolition opposed by two aldermen to be the most contentious issue. Wrong. That status went to a case where homeowners on Maryland Avenue in the Central West End proposed installing insert-style replacement windows on their homes. Such window replacement is not allowed under the standards of the Central West End Local Historic District, because the installation changes architectural detailing and does not address the structural failure of wood that is then covered up by a new window unit. (If the wood is rotten, broken or damaged, it will be the same when it gets covered up.)

The owners and their window salesman (the same guy had both customers) made earnest arguments for allowing their use, but none of the arguments addressed the local historic district standards. Clearly, the salesman was not familiar with the ordinance, and he was the one who is trying to sell the windows to the homeowners over types that might have complied. He is one of many salesman or installers who have appeared before the Preservation Board. What distinguishes him is that he came to the Board before attempting to install the wrong windows.

The Board denied the application, but the matter raised a question in my mind: What if one of the requirements for obtaining a business license for window sales and/or installation was passing a written test demonstrating knowledge of the city’s design and historic preservation ordinances?

Categories
Central West End Demolition DeVille Motor Hotel Mid-Century Modern Preservation Board

San Luis Column Spacing, Partitions Were Not Limiting

by Michael R. Allen

Even before the Building Division issued the demolition permit for the San Luis Apartments (originally the DeVille Motor Hotel), interior demolition began. That work showed anyone who passed by that the assertion by the St. Louis Archdiocese that the building’s tiny, “prison-like” (as one staff member put it) rooms impeded rehabilitation was false. The room partitions crumpled at the strike of the Bobcat, and their removal had no structural bearing.

Moreover, demolition showed us that the the DeVille’s column spacing was far more generous than represented by the Archdiocese. The photograph above shows that the columns on the wings were located only on the sides of the concrete floor plates. Once the partitions were removed, we all saw wide open floors that could be configured any way a developer wished.

Look at that generous open space between the columns, and the ample ceiling height. There were many possibilities for reuse. At the Preservation Board, the Archdiocese and its architect Dan Jay gave the impression that the column spacing and motel-sized rooms were fixed limits to the future use of the building. Not so.

Categories
Central West End Demolition Historic Preservation Mid-Century Modern Preservation Board

Why the Friends of the San Luis Continue

by Michael R. Allen

On July 27, Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. dismissed the Friends of the San Luis‘ petition for injunctive relief. The petition sought to stop demolition of the San Luis Apartments so that the Friends could file an appeal of the Preservation Board’s approval of the demolition. Dierker not only dismissed the case, but did so on the basis that the Friends had no legal standing to bring forth a preservation appeal under the city’s preservation laws.

So, the building is gone and the case dismissed. Why are the Friends of the San Luis still fighting?

If left unchallenged, Judge Dierker’s ruling could set case precedent that citizens and advocacy groups lack the right to appeal decisions of the Preservation Board. Since the Preservation Board and its enabling laws govern the entire city, all citizens are affected by the decisions of the Board and deserve the right to appeal on procedural grounds.

Why would the Friends of the San Luis care about the right to appeal? Didn’t you want to save one building?

True, our organization was formed to advocate for a specific building. Yet our ability to do so was undercut by Dierker’s decision. The members of the Friends of the San Luis are active in other preservation matters in which the right to appeal is essential. If people have to go to court to prove our right to participate on every matter, concerned citizens won’t be able to actually fight for our city’s historic buildings. We must legally clarify that right to protect citizen preservation advocacy.

Okay. What’s next?

We will file an appeal of Dierker’s ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals on the basis of his narrow definition of who has appeal rights. That appeal must be filed within 30 days of the ruling. Then, the Missouri Court of Appeals will schedule its hearing.

What if you lose at the Missouri Court of Appeals?

We could appeal further to the Missouri Supreme Court. However, if the St. Louis preservation ordinance’s right to appeal is not clear enough to withstand appellant judicial review, then there is a bigger problem than one judge’s point of view. Then we will know that the ordinance itself needs more clear language protecting citizen right to appeal.

Categories
Central West End Demolition Mid-Century Modern North St. Louis Preservation Board

Preservation Board Approved BJC Demolitions, Denies Alterations to Mid-Century Wohl Recreation Center

by Michael R. Allen

Yesterday, the St. Louis Preservation Board approved on a preliminary basis demolition of the Ettrick, Schoenberg Residence Hall and the two buildings at 3-17 N. Euclid. The Board voted 4-1, with members Mary Johnson, David Visintainer, Phyllis Young and John Burse voting in favor, and Mike Killeen opposed. I testified against demolition, and two citizens sent tesimony by e-mail. After last month’s packed meeting, I was surprised that the Board was back to its usual sparse crowd.

The Board also unanimously denied the Board of Public Service’s application to replace the doors at the Wohl Recreation Center swimming pool with a storefront system. The doors are an essential design feature of the mid-century modern building at 1515 N. Kingshighway in Sherman Park. The Wohl Recreation Center was built in 1959 and designed by Russell, Mullgardt, Scwartz and Van Hoefen — architects of Northland Shopping Center, the Engineers Club, Steinberg Hall and other local modern landmarks. Cultural Resources Office (CRO) Director Kate Shea laudably stood up against the plan, despite the clout of the other city agency. I was glad to see the CRO stand up for the design integrity of a modern public building.

Categories
Central West End Historic Preservation Mid-Century Modern Preservation Board

Friends of the San Luis Seek Demolition Halt, Right to Appeal

by Michael R. Allen


From the Friends of the San Luis (of which I am now President):

FRIENDS OF THE SAN LUIS SEEK DEMOLITION HALT, RIGHT TO APPEAL PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION

On July 17, the Friends of the San Luis, Inc. filed a petition in Circuit Court to obtain a temporary injunction that would prohibit the Archdiocese of St. Louis from proceeding with any demolition work at the San Luis Apartments until our organization has exhausted its legal appeal of the approval of the demolition permit. While we do not have a final judgment, Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. has denied our motion for a temporary restraining order. The Building Division issued a demolition permit on Monday, July 20, and preliminary demolition work is now underway.

Our mission is to preserve the San Luis Apartments, and at this eleventh hour we press onward with that basic mission but also a larger one. After the Preservation Board granted preliminary approval to the demolition by a narrow vote, we intended to appeal that decision through our right under the city’s preservation ordinance. We think that the Preservation Board’s action was made through incorrect application of the law. Furthermore, we think that that the Cultural Resources Office report on the issue misled citizens and Preservation Board members through imprecise legal reasoning that made it unclear what laws were in play. Since the Preservation Board acts only to enforce city ordinances, without clarity of which laws are being enforced there is no due process.

Under the preservation ordinance, however, we have only the right to appeal an approved demolition permit. We filed the injunction petition to ensure that we were still fighting for an actual building rather than a rubble pile. Unfortunately, Judge Dierker is not stopping demolition as well as challenging our legal standing to bring forth an appeal of the Preservation Board decision. Thus begins our larger cause.

Our preservation ordinance allows an aggrieved party to bring forth an appeal. The preservation ordinance was passed by the Board of Aldermen for the benefit of the entire city, and its stakeholders are all citizens who share the duty of protecting the city’s heritage. The law enjoins us to become stewards of our architectural heritage, and the Friends of the San Luis gladly step forward to answer that call.

We contend that citizen right to appeal the decision of the Preservation Board is a fundamental part of due process and essential to the enforcement of the preservation review ordinance. Without the right to appeal, citizen participation has severely limited impact. Citizens must have the right to act when they feel that the preservation review ordinance has been violated by its own custodians. The right to appeal is a basic legal principle, and it must be part of St. Louis’ preservation law.

While we hold out weary hope of preserving the San Luis, we must assert the right of the citizen to bring forth an appeal under preservation law. We believe that future efforts will benefit from legal protection of that right, and that its fundamental sanctity is worth pursuing no matter what happens to the San Luis.

###