Category: Preservation Board

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

Testimony on the DeVille Motor Hotel (San Luis Apartments)

by Michael R. Allen

Here is my testimony from Monday’s Preservation Board consideration of the preliminary review of the Archdiocese’s application to demolish the DeVille Motor Hotel (San Luis Apartments) at 4483 Lindell Boulevard and build a surface parking lot in its place.

The Board approved the application by a vote of 3-2, with Board members Richard Callow, David Richardson (who is Missouri adviser to the National Trust for Historic Preservation) and Alderwoman Phyllis Young voting yes and members Melanie Fathman and Anthony Robinson voting no.

RELEVANT ORDINANCES

In regard to the legal standards that bind the Preservation Board’s decision today, I think that members will find the ordinances quite clear: the Archdiocese’s plan meets neither the standards established by the Central West End Historic District ordinance nor the demolition review criteria in the city’s preservation review ordinance. The Board should deny both parts of the proposal and uphold our city’s preservation laws. The Preservation Board has no legal authority to make decisions based on the institutional parking requirements of the Archdiocese or Rosati-Kain, but only on the explicit criteria of the two applicable ordinances.

While the Central West End Local Historic District standards do not expressly forbid the construction of surface parking lots in the district, they are only allowed in areas with commercial zoning (zoned F or H). The DeVille parcel is zoned E (Multiple Family Residential), which is governed by the residential standards of the local district.

Even with a zoning change for this parcel, the parking lot proposal does not meet the commercial standards of the district, which I quote:

All off-street parking shall be located behind or to the side of commercial structures. Where visible from the street, screening with visually opaque landscaping or 5′ minimum high masonry or concrete wall shall be necessary.

The current proposal fails to meet this provision because the parking lot will occupy the entire parcel, not adjacent to a building, but rather in the plain view of two streets, an alley and even from the sidewalk a great distance to the east. While the proposed screening may meet the standards, the standards disallow construction of a parking lot that is not adjacent to a building. The proposed parking lot requires a variance from the standards that I think is unwarranted.

Furthermore, the district standards explicitly safeguard the architectural characteristics of block faces. Again I quote the standards:

Developers, therefore, shall demonstrate compliance with exiting scale, size and proportion… Visual compliance shall be judged on massing and detail in addition to size and scale.

The parking lot does not meet the “visual compliance” standard established here. The current face of this block is a symmetrical arrangement, with the large Cathedral and DeVille buildings serving as book ends on either side of the Chancery. While the architectural character is varied, the urban forms that give the block face harmony are dependent on the balance of large, taller buildings on each corner. The parking lot removes one of those buildings, creating an imbalance that clearly does not maintain existing scale, size or proportion. Plus, the stark exposure of the alley and utilities from Lindell will create a visual problem for pedestrians.

Note that Central West End residents have successfully blocked development projects in the past by filing lawsuits to uphold enforcement of these standards. These standards enjoy widespread and passionate support in the neighborhood, not simply because they enshrine common values but because they are an effective and clear legal tool for protecting the urban character of the neighborhood.

Beyond the local district standards, the current proposal also fails to meet the standard criteria of the preservation ordinance. (I will not address financial hardship, which is clearly not at issue in this matter.)

A. Redevelopment Plans

There is no approved or proposed formal redevelopment plan for the DeVille site.

B. Architectural Quality

The DeVille Motor Hotel is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for its local architectural significance. (More on that in a moment.) Under the Preservation ordinance’s definition, the DeVille is thus a High Merit structure. (“High Merit”partly is defined as “deserving of consideration for single site historic or Landmark Site designation.”)

This criteria is one of the primary reasons why the Board has authority to deny the demolition of the DeVille. Under the preservation review ordinance, the Board must act to protect all Merit and High Merit structures . The State Historic Preservation Office’s statement of eligibility for single-site listing is cause for treating the DeVille as a High merit structure at the present moment.

C. Condition

The DeVille building obviously requires repairs common to buildings of its age, but it is sound under the ordinance and apparently safe enough that the Archdiocese maintained it as a residential building until 2007.

D. Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential

The Central West End Association and many neighborhood residents have offered the opinion that the surface parking lot has an adverse neighborhood impact.

As for reuse potential, we have only a report prepared by the architectural firm hired to design the parking lot. There has been no independent analysis of reuse potential. However, given the successful rehabilitation of the Hotel Indigo to the west and the former Days Inn downtown, reuse potential of mid-century motels for original or adapted uses now has been demonstrated in the city.

E. Urban Design.

The preservation ordinance reiterates the principles of the Central West End local historic district ordinance regarding integrity of block face as well as the impact on “significant character important to a district, street, block or intersection.” Clearly, the proposal is detrimental to its block face, but also it is detrimental in a larger architectural context along Lindell Boulevard. This brings me to the issue of National Register of Historic Places eligibility.

ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER

Because of the DeVille’s unique architectural quality as well as its contributing role to a significant group of Modern buildings on Lindell Boulevard, the State Historic Preservation office has determined that the DeVille is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Not only do we have that hopeful determination, but also on May 1 the Keeper of the National Register listed Lindell’s other mid-century motel: the Bel Air Motel at 4630 Lindell, built between 1958-1961 and beautifully rehabilitated as the Hotel Indigo. (The Preservation Board approved the Bel Air nomination last year.)

Also, in the past two years, I have written or co-written two other successful National Register nominations of mid-century buildings in the city built within the past 50 years — the Plaza Square Apartments downtown and the Nooter Corporation Building at 1400 S. Third Street. In these cases, the opinions of the State Historic Preservation Office and the Keeper of the National Register were aligned: if the buildings were eligible for the National Register at all, waiting until the “50 year mark” to pursue listing was unnecessary and arbitrary. In fact, at a 2007 workshop hosted by the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office, National Park Service historian Dan Vivian relayed to Missouri preparers of nominations that the practice of waiting for a property to reach 50 years of age before listing was based on myth and not actual Park service policy. Vivian urged us to nominate eligible buildings in accordance with National Register Criterion Consideration G — a consideration that ensures that buildings less than 50 years old have attained exceptional significance worthy of inclusion in the Register.

Our knowledge of the eligibility of modern buildings has grown over the past three years, and the Bel Air Motel nomination allowed greater exploration of a context in which the DeVille plays a major role. As part of the Bel Air nomination, Karen Baxter and I conducted a survey of the mid-century modern resources of Lindell between Grand Avenue and Kingshighway. Lindell long was the main connection between downtown St. Louis and Clayton, and attracted commercial development as the city resumed developing itself after the slowdown of the Great Depression and World War II era. The aging mansions offered large lots well-suited for new commercial buildings.

In the Lindell survey area, 36 buildings were constructed and two others were re-clad in a building boom between 1945 and 1977. Of these, 34 were built in the styles of the Modern movement. Only one of these buildings has been demolished. The range of design quality, height, material use and stylistic influences is wide among these buildings, yet they have an indelible impact on Lindell. In my opinion, one can say that modern commercial architecture is as much a part of the definitive character of Lindell as is the earlier revival-style residential architecture.

Historically, the unique Mid-Century Modern grouping on Lindell is by far the city’s most significant Modern commercial development. The development of Mid-Century Modern architecture on Lindell Boulevard precedes major downtown urban renewal projects that also used the style (including the iconic Gateway Arch and Busch Stadium). Lindell’s modern buildings demonstrate that St. Louis after World War II was a city deftly remaking itself through bold modern buildings. The concentration includes very significant buildings to the development of Modern Movement architecture in St. Louis. Three of these buildings even achieved early recognition through inclusion in the 1967 edition of George McCue’s The Building Art in St. Louis.

Not surprising, however, is the finding that most of the modern buildings on Lindell were designed by local architects or draftsman, many of little renown. There are strong supporting buildings and a few obvious architectural stars, like the Archdiocesan Chancery, the Lindell Terrace, the Engineers Club and the DeVille, designed by Charles Colbert of New Orleans (1963). Four of the modern buildings have out-of-town architects, but of those four, only Colbert has what can plainly be called a national reputation among architectural historians. While the Bel Air Motel is a fine building that merits National Register listing, the DeVille has greater significance through its more original design, form and massing as well as its association with Charles Colbert.

Demolition of the DeVille would result in the removal of one of Lindell’s finest modern buildings, a clear negative urban design impact on one of the city’s most prominent thoroughfares. So far, the only lost mid-century building on Lindell has been the Cinerama at 4218 Lindell. On Lindell, we have an unparalled nearly-intact document of our city’s triumphant attempt to reclaim its future amid declining fortunes and suburban growth. Ironically, these buildings took the place of others that we all now recognize as worthy of preservation. Proposed demolition of the DeVille raises the issue of whether we are about to embark upon renewing the unsustainable cycle of demolition and replacement that this city infamously embraced in the late 20th century.

The Preservation Board can break the cycle by upholding the laws we developed in response to the demolition cycle that once plagued our city. Members should deny the proposed parking lot and demolition of the DeVille Motor Hotel since each action certainly fails to meet the criteria of the ordinances under which today’s action will be taken.

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

Preservation Board Grants Preliminary Approval DeVille, North Grand Demolitions

by Michael R. Allen

Last night, the Preservation Board voted 3-2 to grant preliminary approval of a surface parking lot and demolition of the San Luis Apartments (formerly the DeVille Motor Hotel). I’m on my way out of town today so I will offer thoughts when I return. For now, I should point out that five out of nine Preservation Board members were present, while 20 citizens testified against demolition. While this ration is unusual, it shows the discrepancy between citizen interest and Preservation Board member interest in one of biggest urban design matters this year.

Alderwoman Lyda Krewson (D-28th) tipped the balance by coming out in favor of approval at the end of the meeting. Her remarks were a roller coaster ride of what side she would take, but when she came back to the issue of Archdiocese parking needs (politically germane, but beyond the legal scope of the ordinances governing Preservation Board action) hearts sank. Frankly, she might have done better for herself had she not spoken at all instead of aligning herself with the surface lot plan that even she admits is not appropriate for that corner.

While my colleagues will be writing about the DeVille over the next few days, I want to point out that another demolition was approved by the Preservation Board yesterday in a questionable manner. When I arrived at the Board meeting, I found preliminary review of the demolition of the commercial building at 3501-9 North Grand Avenue was on the agenda. This matter did not appear on the agenda posted online a week before the meeting, nor did it appear in any special notice sent within 24 hours of the start of the meeting.

The public, including residents of the area around the building (intersection of Grand and Hebert), would never have known this matter was on the Board agenda. Most people probably still don’t.

Alderman Freeman Bosley, Sr. (D-3rd), often a preservation-minded alderman, had the item placed on the agenda and was the official applicant. However, building owner Darryl Mitchell appeared to announce that he had already applied for a demolition permit and that he was the applicant. The Preservation Board changed the record to reflect this testimony, which may or may not be allowed under Preservation Board procedures.

Perhaps this matter is irrelevant given that the Board granted preliminary approval 4-0 and only two people from an audience of more than 40 testified, but I think the procedure followed was wrong. If an actual demolition permit was on the table, then it cannot be considered as a preliminary review. The Cultural Resources Office staff had not reviewed the permit yet, so the matter certainly was not an appeal.

Since this was a preliminary review, the Board can bring the matter back and give the demolition permit its appropriately-announced legal hearing. I hope that the Board does so.

Categories
Academy Neighborhood Demolition North St. Louis Old North Preservation Board

Planning Commission Overturns Two Preservation Board Decisions

by Michael R. Allen

On June 3, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted a resolution to grant demolition of the corner commercial building at 5286-98 Page Boulevard if owner Berean Seventh Day Adventist Church met several conditions. Those conditions are completion of permit-appropriate construction drawings for the proposed surface parking lot within 30 days and securing of construction financing within 90 days. If those dates are not met, the permit stands denied and the church will have to appeal the denial to the St. Louis Circuit Court.

How did the demolition permit end up at the Planning Commission, and why would that body approve demolition for a parking lot? In January 2008, the Preservation Board upheld Cultural Resources Office staff denial of the demolition permit by a vote of 5-2. Per city preservation law, Berean appealed this decision to the Planning Commission. The next step in the appeals process would be court. The Planning Commission has authority to review and “modify” decisions of the Preservation Board, which is what the June 3 decision is considered. (Note that the Planning Commission does not typically solicit or accept citizen testimony, although the public may attend its meetings.)

At the behest of the Planning Commission, the Berean church worked with Dale Ruthsatz at the St. Louis Development Corporation to improve the original plan for a parking lot. The new plan calls for “green” features such as permeable paving and landscaping. Parking entrances have been moved off of Page and Union and onto the alley, so that pedestrians on these streets won’t be bothered by traffic. Eventually, the church wants to build a community center on the site. Planning Commission members expressed the sentiment that they wanted to exercise leverage over the parking lot design rather than let the matter go to court where the city might lose its case and its design review.

Back in April, the Planning Commission also overturned — or, rather, modified — the Preservation Board decision on a certain house at 2619-21 Hadley Street. The back story is slightly complicated. Suffice to say that the Haven of Grace, a shelter for homeless pregnant women, wanted the old house gone — after it had resolved to rehabilitate it in order to secure a demolition permit for another historic building.

The Haven of Grace pursued demolition relentlessly. After the Preservation Board in August 2008 reaffirmed its original decision, the organization appealed to the Planning Commission. The legal strategy of the Haven of Grace was effective enough to lead to the Planning Commission’s vote to overturn the Preservation Board decision, but not enough to do so without penalty. The Planning Commission stipulated that the Haven of Grace must pay $25,000 to city that will be used for building stabilization by the Cultural Resources Office.

While there are few chances for the city to secure $25,000 for stabilization, the Planning Commission action may be a dangerous precedent. My hope is that it is an isolated instance of such a questionable outcome. It’s certainly better than a victory for demolition with no trade-off.

The house on Hadley Street is now gone. Watching the demolition, it was clear to me that the house was in much better condition that I had assumed. The floors looked sturdy, original millwork abounded and even the plaster walls looked to be in fair condition. An expenditure of $25,000 could have mothballed this house for better days.

The Planning Commission’s compromises demonstrate the flaws in our current system or preservation review and planning. In fairness to the Planning Commission, the city lacks progressive ordinances here. I understand the inclination toward meting out compromise rather than take matter into lengthy circuit court battles. However, if the Preservation Board’s decisions on these matters were made fairly and by wide margins of voting members, they should be upheld on appeal.

The Planning Commission should not feel trapped. The Preservation Board should not be rendered powerless because an applicant (or elected official) has the money and time to make things difficult for the city. We need better design ordinances and city agencies empowered to do more than just say “no.” Ultimately, we need a better framework in which to make planning decisions.

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

Daily DeVille #2

Demolition of the former DeVille Motor Hotel, 4483 Lindell Boulevard, will be on Monday’s Preservation Board agenda. Read more here.

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

Help Stop a New Parking Lot on Lindell

by Michael R. Allen

Graphic by Kara Clark Holland.

The day has arrived: On next Monday, June 22, the St. Louis Preservation Board will consider the demolition of the DeVille Motor Hotel (recently the San Luis Apartments) at 4483 Lindell Boulevard. The Archdiocese of St. Louis has asked the Board to conduct a preliminary review of its plan to demolish the mid-century motel and build a surface parking lot. As a preliminary review, the issue is not tied to an actual demolition permit. However, if the Board grants preliminary review, the city’s Cultural Resources Office must approve the demolition permit (after any stipulations placed on issuance have been met). If the preliminary review ends up with a denial, the Archdiocese will have to return to the Preservation Board with a new plan.

While some have said that this is a “done deal,” that is not true. The Preservation Board can block the demolition next Monday. However, your help is needed — the Board seeks direction not only from the applicant and preservation professionals, but from the wider public. Central West End residents especially should chime in.

I should also note that those who don’t particularly like the DeVille but loathe the urban design travesty of a surface lot on Lindell Boulevard will be best served by board denial of the current proposal. Once the parking lot is approved, the idea of a new building on the site is at the Archdiocese’s discretion. Don’t hold your breath.

Please send your written comments, no matter how brief, to the Preservation Board by submitting an e-mail to Board Secretary Adonna Buford at BufordA@stlouiscity.com. You might consider copying your letter to Alderwoman Lyda Krewson (D-28th), who represents the DeVille site and whose leadership on this matter would be helpful.

You can also send a letter via postal mail to:

Preservation Board
c/o Cultural Resources Office
1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63101

If you would like to present your comments in person, the Preservation Board meeting is at 4:00 P.M. on the 22nd at 1015 Locust, Suite 1200. There are several items on the agenda before the San Luis, so the meeting may be long.

Everything you need to know about the issue is online at No Parking Lot on Lindell!.

Categories
Preservation Board St. Louis Board of Aldermen

Kennedy Out as Public Safety Chair, Preservation Board Member?

by Michael R. Allen

Word from the Board of Aldermen this week is that Alderman Terry Kennedy (D-18th) is out as Chairperson of the Public Safety Committee, to be replaced by Alderman Phyllis Young (D-7th). Kennedy is supposed to chair the Transportation Committee instead.

This move is significant to historic preservation because the chair of the Public Safety Committee by ordinance has a seat on the city’s Preservation Board. The chairperson can take that spot himself, as Kennedy did, or appoint a proxy member of the Public Safety Committee. No news yet on Young’s intentions.

Terry has been a thoughtful member of the Preservation Board, often raising issues of class, race and public policy that no one else would. While more often than not we have been on opposing sides of granting demolition permits, I have always appreciated Terry’s principled voice and willingness to discuss — and find solutions to — deep divides between preservationists and communities.

Categories
Historic Preservation Preservation Board South St. Louis

Preservation Board Blocks NLEC Demolition Plan

by Michael R. Allen

Yesterday, the St. Louis Preservation Board unanimously upheld staff denial of a demolition permit for the house at 4722 Tennessee Avenue in Dutchtown. The New Life Evangelistic Center (NLEC) applied for a demolition permit in September, and the Cultural Resources Office denied the permit shortly afterward. NLEC appealed the denial to the board. At the November meeting of the Preservation Board, NLEC representative Jeff Schneider waved the right to a timely appeal in order to return with a stronger presentation.

Schneider failed to do so. Yesterday, he asked the board for yet another continuance despite the fact that several people, include Dutchtown South Community Corporation Executive Director Kelly Kress and myself, had already attended a meeting with prepared testimony against the appeal.

Schneider did bring engineer Michael Mahaney, who attempted to make the case that the building was structurally unsound although he has not yet been inside of the building or produced a detailed assessment.

Board member Mike Killeen made a motion to defer consideration for one month but withdrew the motion after both Cultural Resources Office Director Kathleen Shea and Board Chairman Richard Callow stated that board members, staff and citizens had as much a right to timely consideration of the appeal as the appellant. No one of the board disagreed with Shea’s assessment that the proposed demolition met none of the criteria for demolition established by the city’s preservation ordinance.

Alderwoman Dorothy Kirner spoke against the proposed demolition, and Kress and myself were recognized by the chairman but did not speak since the board’s stance was already clear. David Richardson moved to uphold staff denial, and the board unanimously supported that motion. The matter may be far from over, though.

Also yesterday the board unaimously approved National Register nominations for the Gill Buidling, Liggett & Myers Historic District, the Bel Air West Motel and the Grand-Bates Suburb Historic District. The board unanimously granted preliminary approval to plans to build a new house at 2308 S. 10th Street in the Soulard Historic District.

Categories
Historic Preservation Housing Preservation Board South St. Louis

Dutchtown Center Hall House on December 22 Preservation Board Agenda

by Michael R. Allen

On Monday, December 22 the St. Louis Preservation Board will again consider demolition of the frame center-hall house at 4722 Tennessee Avenue in Dutchtown. New Life Evangelistic Center (NLEC) applied for a demolition permit in the fall that the city’s Cultural Resources Office denied. NLEC appealed the denial to the board, which was set to consider the matter at its November 2008 meeting. (See “NLEC Seeks Demolition of Frame Center Hall House on Tennessee,” November 23.) NLEC obtained a deferral, and the item was moved to the current agenda.

The Preservation Board previously denied an appeal of a staff denial in 2007. NLEC purchased the house after this denial. Alderwoman Dorothy Kirner (D-25th) is opposed to demolition, and many neighbors are opposed to NLEC’s presence in Dutchtown. Seems like the smart path would be for NLEC to act on Kirner’s opposition to find assistance in rehabilitating the historic house.

At the last Preservation Board meeting, the NLEC representative who attended testified that NLEC might want to explore rehabilitation of the house. I have no knowledge if NLEC has decided to suspend plans for demolition or not. As far as I know, the Board will be considering the appeal on Monday, and citizens need to be prepared to testify on behalf of preservation then.

The Preservation Board meets Monday, December 22 at 4:00 p.m. in the 12th floor conference room at 1015 Locust Street downtown. Written testimony can be sent to the board via Adonna Buford, BufordA@stlouiscity.com.

Categories
Academy Neighborhood Historic Preservation North St. Louis Preservation Board South St. Louis

No Bad News from Monday’s Preservation Board Meeting

by Michael R. Allen

On Monday, the St. Louis Preservation Board meeting yielded no bad news:

  • Washington University withdrew from preliminary consideration plans to demolish a one-story commercial building at 622 N. Skinker in order to build parking for the “Corner Building” at Skinker and Delmar, which the university is rehabbing. The Board granted preliminary approval for a variance that allows for wind turbines to be built atop the Corner Building. The university is exploring other options for parking, including building a new multi-story building that would extend along Skinker from the corner building to Enright Avenue.
  • The board denied preliminary applications for demolition for houses at 1826 Warren Street in St. Louis Place and 5155 Cates Avenue in the Mount Cabanne-Raymond Place Historic District. Neither owner bothered to attend the meeting!
  • At the request of a representative of the New Life Evangelistic Center, the Board will defer consideration of an appeal of staff denial of a demolition permit for the house at 4722 Tennessee Avenue in Dutchtown. The matter will likely be placed on the January board agenda since the December meetings are traditionally short and free of review or appeal items.
  • The board approved on preliminary review a plan to demolish a two-story brick garage at 1106 Dolman Avenue in Lafayette Square. The garage has a split foundation and is beginning to collapse. Owner Mike Drinen plans to reconstruct the building, which likely dates to the 1920s.
  • The board voted to deny a permit to retain seven windows installed without a permit at 2003 Senate Street in Benton Park. The owner installed a total of 18 windows on the house between 2004 and 2008, and wrapped the sides with aluminum. In 2006, Benton Park became a local historic district and wrapping was prohibited by district standards. Although the seven windows are not exclusively on the front elevation and not all front windows are in the seven now denied, all denied windows were installed since the local district standards went into effect. The board’s vote is an endorsement of honoring local district standards, and sets a good precedent. Work at 2003 Senate had stopped for two years before the last seven windows went in. While the old work was legal, the new work was not. Some projects evolve for years or decades and the start date of local standards should be enforced, not the start date of slow-moving projects. Ambiguity there would undermine citizen efforts to establish local district standards.
    • Categories
    Historic Preservation Housing Preservation Board South St. Louis

    NLEC Seeks Demolition of Frame Center Hall House on Tennessee

    by Michael R. Allen

    The New Life Evangelistic Center (NLEC) has appealed the Cultural Resources Office’s denial of a demolition permit for the 19th centuery center-hall house at 4722 Tennessee Avenue. The house in Dutchtown went through the same ordeal last year when developers sought its demolition. On appeal, the Preservation Board denied the permit. The developers then sold the property to the NLEC for a controversial homeless facility.

    To its credit, NLEC secured the house after purchase. While there is some deterioration of concern, the house is sound and in its present state secure against water and trespass. The Cultural Resources Office is wisely recommending that the Board uphold its denial, and Alderwoman Dorothy Kirner (D-25th) also supports preservation of the unique house.

    There are a small number of center-hall homes remaining in the city, and less than ten frame examples. These homes mostly date to 19th century pre-subdivision settlement of neighborhoods, and some were part of farms. The house on Tennessee is probably the most intact example of a frame center-hall house in the city, and located in a stable neighborhood where rehabilitation is not only desirable but completely feasible.

    The Preservation Board meets at 4:00 p.m. Monday, November 24, in the 12th floor conference room at 1015 Locust Street downtown. The meeting agenda is online. Correspondence to the board may be sent to BufordA@stlouiscity.com.