Preservation Research Officeby Michael R. Allen
Just for the record: The Preservation Board did meet this morning to satisfy the statutory requirement for a monthly meeting. Chairman Richard Callow and member Luis Porrello were the only members in attendance, and they wasted no time in adjourning the meeting.
Your intrepid editors were the only citizen observers present for the brief meeting, proving that either we don’t have anything better to do or that we are very vigilant.
by Michael R. Allen
Kudos to Kira and Gordon McKinney, who earlier this month hosted the grand opening at what is probably the first art gallery in Old North St. Louis in this century, if not ever. The Flop House at 13th and Hebert opened on December 8 to a ragtag assembly of young people, many of whom had not ever visited the neighborhood before. On display at the opening — again, an Old North milestone — were charcoal-on-paper works, accompanied by the requisite snacks and Stag beer. (Incidentally, Stag Beer was brewed for awhile in the 1950s by the Griesidieck family at the nearby Hyde Park Brewery at Florissant and Salisbury avenues.)
Needless to say, rehab at the Flop House is not yet complete, and it did not have heat for the chilly opening night. Not that such limitations matter to Kira and Gordon or the attendees. In true neighborhood fashion, someone had an idea and didn’t let trivialities stand in the way of making it happen. This spirit has helped Old North’s older generations overcome great troubles, and in newer residents it’s helping generate a vibrant cultural energy that’s infectious.
Keep watch for great things at the Flop House in the new year.
by Michael R. Allen
Photograph taken on June 14, 2006 (Paul Hohmann).
LOCATION: 235 Boyle Avenue; Central West End; St. Louis, Missouri
DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1924
DATE OF DEMOLITION: October – November 2006
ARCHITECT: L.S. Schaffner
The sturdy building familiar to most people as the Shaughnessy-Kneip-Hawe Paper Company Building dates to 1924, when it was built as a factory for the O. Morse Show Company. The architect was L.S. Schaffer, and the factory cost $30,000 to build. At the time, the design was very much on the cutting edge in its anticipation of the Art Deco style, which had yet to be formally identified in America.
The concrete-framed building was two stories tall will a tall basement story, and was articulated in brown brick with projecting piers and large steel-sash windows providing the variation on the base. The building was fairly massive on its two street-facing elevations: it was thirteen bays wide on Boyle and seven bays wide on Duncan. The form was functional and streamline. However, the architectural significance lay in the buff terra cotta ornament found in the frieze under the cornice and in rosettes at the second floor of each pier that feature a projecting lion’s mouth (echoed in other local buildings, notably the Robert E. Lee Hotel, built in 1927). The center five bays on Duncan and the center nine bays on Boyle rose to a somewhat higher frieze than do the outer bays, and the frieze on those sections featured abstract rosettes with conical projections that were somewhat exaggerated in a manner straight out of the Art Deco style. The lower friezes featured intertwined floral elements in a rolling wave pattern that are somewhat abstracted. The terra cotta’s color and execution were dazzling.
The beauty disappeared as part of the CORTEX project. The site was selected by city planners as the site for a new headquarters building for biotech company Solae. This building would be neither the first nor last architectural casualty of CORTEX, envisioned by city planners as a nationally-significant biotech district. The CORTEX redevelopment ordinance encompasses 246 acres and numerous historic buildings in the Central West End and Midtown, in an area roughly bounded by Vandeventer Avenue on the east, Chouteau Avenue on the south, Taylor Avenue on the west and Forest Park Avenue on the north.
There has yet to be substantive public debate on the urban planning aspects of CORTEX. The blighting and redevelopment ordinances for the project, introduced by Alderman Joseph Roddy (D-17th), sailed through the Board of Aldermen with unanimous votes. Most opposition comes from business and building owners who do not want to be displaced. Many people who would have critical perspectives, including architects, planners and preservationists, learned of CORTEX only after it was a done deal.
There was some question as to whether the Morse Shoe Company Building’s demolition would have to be reviewed by the city’s Preservation Board, since the building stood in a preservation review district. CORTEX’s enabling ordinances apparently trumped existing preservation review laws, and the Board never reviewed the permit.
Many people don’t realize what redevelopment powers CORTEX is granted by law. The impact of those powers needs to be debated fully and mitigated so that sensible urban planning and preservation can guide the redevelopment of the area. There is no reason why a building like the Morse Shoe Company building could not be successfully rehabbed as part of CORTEX. No reason, that is, other than the fact that those who might suggest such a course have not been included in planning.
Of course, it’s not too late to have debate and make changes to the big plans for CORTEX.
The following note now appears on the city’s Preservation Board website:
The St. Louis Preservation Board will meet on December 28, 2006 at 10:00 A.M. in the Cultural Resources Office of the Planning and Urban Design Agency, 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1100.
NOTE:This internet posting is not the official posting of this notice.The official posting of notice is the physical copy displayed in the main lobby of our building at 1015 Locust Street and also at the Planning and Urban Design Agency offices on the 11th Floor.
The website lists no agenda items.
Earlier this month, the Preservation Board website stated that there would not be a December meeting due to the holidays.
I wonder what will be discussed Thursday. Only one way to find out…
by Michael R. Allen
Backing a tax increment financing loan structure for private benefit with a city’s general revenues is risky business. That the city of St. Louis is now obligated for $28 million toward the acquisition of the One City Center office building by the Pyramid Companies is absurd. Here, we have a developer that has just agreed to take on the long-needed redevelopment of St. Louis Centre and claims — out of the blue, long after announcing that project — that such redevelopment will be hindered if the company cannot also acquire the One City Center building enveloped by St. Louis Centre. That makes some sense, although claiming necessity is a hearty exaggeration. What’s worse is that this big-time development company, with plenty of incomplete projects, made the claim that it could not afford to purchase the ailing office building itself — and then asked for this almost-unprecedented TIF.
How can anyone trust a company that owns so much downtown real estate yet expects city government to buy it an expensive office building?
Unfortunately, Pyramid isn’t the least trustworthy party. All the Slay administration and the aldermen could have done was tell Pyramid “no.” Not this deal, not this time, not that amount. After all, the TIF was based on a hyper-inflated appraisal price that values the building at $26 million. Slay should have demanded a new appraisal.
Instead, our mayor jumped in fully supporting the TIF. Never mind that the city’s population is far from stable and that the city is struggling to maintain a decent level of city services with current revenues. There is no guarantee that the city’s revenue will rise over the next decade. As the mayor of a city with a delicate but potentially bright future, Slay should have opposed the TIF. The last TIF backed by the city’s general revenue was for the failed St. Louis Marketplace project on Manchester Road, the tarnished trophy of former Mayor Vince Schoemehl. That TIF is now a drag on the city’s budget. Why create a second?
On December 13, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment voted 2-1 in favor of the TIF agreement. Comptroller Darlene Green stood up for fiscal prudence and opposed the TIF, while Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury quietly voted to support a TIF many would-be allies strongly opposed. Of course, Shrewsbury may have caved to the pressure of opposition in the upcoming race for his office. The Board of Aldermen followed with a 26-2 vote for the TIF agreement; only Aldermen Stephen Conway (D-8th) and Fred Heitert (R-12th) opposed the bill.
Thus begins the tenuous tie between a real estate venture and the public good of a metropolitan city. All citizens are indentured to John Steffen and his company’s ability to turn this office building around. Perhaps Pyramid’s ability is a sure bet, but the revenue of a city government is not betting money. With a diminished and still-recovering population base, continuing hostility from wealthy surburbanites, a relatively low stature among large American cities, decimated public schools and a crime rate that may be rising, St. Louis is not in a position to gamble with its wealth. Conservation, not dissipation, should be the guiding principle of those who lord over the city government.
For those who think the future can’t be anything but great, consider why One City Center has become an albatross: Anheuser-Busch recently relocated all of its employees in the building to Sunset Hills. Amid the bully talk of a downtown whose prospects seem limitless, one of the largest regional employers voted against those prospects. That should be cause of worry — as well as consternation against Anheuser-Busch.
The trouble with tying our city’s general revenue to this real estate venture is that we won’t know if it’s a good or bad thing for years. Then, if it’s bad, there won’t be much the city can do except make huge payments into the TIF while cutting city services accordingly. Do Slay, Shrewsbury and the aldermen want to face a future where the city may have to cut services further? I suppose some of them may be banking on a future where city residents are wealthier and need less from their lean, libertarian city government. The rest of us have reason for much worry.
Find two or three street names within the Fifth Ward. Cobble them together in an unexpected way and tack on a “Venturers” or “Partners” or “Associates” label to give the name sobriety. Get CT Corporation System to register the name as an LC or LLC (and make sure there is an accompanying mirror company), and use it to buy property within boundaries of I-70 on the east, Delmar on the south, Grand on the west, and Natural Bridge/Branch on the north. Kudos if your property is adjacent to city-owned land or an RHCDA development project. Double kudos if you buy your land from the Board of Education, the Public Administrator or the Sheriff at a tax sale. Triple kudos if your purchase lowers property values and destabilizes a part of a neighborhood where you want to buy more parcels. If you buy a building and it becomes a crack house, give yourself a gold star. If you actually ever develop the property, get the mayor to give you a gold star and a TIF.
Here are some possible names:
Branch + Knapp = Brapp Venturers LLC.
Stoddard + Leffingwell + Elliott = Stolefiott Associates LC.
Dayton + Gamble = Dayble Investors LLC.
Howard + Knapp + Helen = Hownhel Associates LC.
Dodier + Sullivan + 23rd = Ervan 23 Investment Ventures LC.
And so forth.
Try your hand and leave your names in the comments section.
by Michael R. Allen
Such architectural beauty and refined historic masonry as found in St. Louis is not easy to find in other American cities. We who dwell here in the city are surrounded by wonderful sights free for the intake. On a walk to work, or a drive to the grocery store, we pass hundreds of buildings that uplift our aesthetic sensibilities. Unlike new, glamorous architecture, which unfortunately is segregated in the wealthier parts of St. Louis, the historic architecture abounds everywhere people live.
Such a cultural resource needs to good stewardship, and often we fail to provide that. As we conclude one year and start another, we should reflect upon what we all can do to steward one of the world’s most important architectural collections: the city of St. Louis.
Photo: Brecht Butcher Supply Company Buildings, 1201 Cass Avenue.
by Michael R. Allen
The Blairmont family is using a new name for acquisitions: Sheridan Place LC, likely named for Sheridan Avenue which runs through the near north side of the city.
Sheridan Place LC was incorporated on March 24, 2006 by the CT Corporation System. Its first deed was filed October 30, 2006, three days after this blog reported on the then-latest Blairmont entity to be used for acquisitions, Dodier Investors LLC.
On the first few deeds filed, Sheridan Place LC listed its address at Eagle Realty Company’s old address, 721 Olive Street Suite 920. On the deeds in type is reported the name Roberta Defiore as manager, but her name is crossed out and the name Bridget G. Calcaterra is handwritten. Calcaterra signed the deeds. Later deeds use a Brentwood address for the company’s mailing address but show Calcaterra’s name in print.
If the name Bridget Calcaterra seems familiar to some of you, it’s probably because she recently served as Deputy Director of the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) of the City of St. Louis. She was also director of Operation Impact, a city program designed to help neighborhoods get privately-owned nuisance properties into the hands of the LRA which then seeks development projects for those properties. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
As an aside, the Blairmont scheme is growing to such epic proportions that I think it’s high time that the parties responsible begin to engage the affected communities. If the end goal is a massive development project, they will need allies here — assuming we all get to stay. If a Blairmont agent is reading, consider the smallest gesture of contact — a call to the head of a neighborhood group or a meeting with an alderperson. Those of us living in the near north side don’t want to stop something good — but we don’t have any reason to believe that what you are proposing is good. Dialogue might resolve the fears and animosity brewing here, and cut my sarcasm in half (maybe).
by Michael R. Allen
If one studies the map of Blairmont holdings that we posted last month, an interersting picture emerges. Besides other concentrations that I have noted, all of the holdings seem to center on one site: the vacant site of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project.
All of the holdings fan out from that location, a city-owned mega-parcel frequently discussed as the nexus of new development on the near north side. Recall that nearly ten years ago the administration of Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr. embraced a plan to build an 18-hole golf course surrounded by suburban-style housing, using the Pruitt-Igoe site and much of the St. Louis Place neighborhood.
Jump forward to 1999-2000, and one may remember the Fifth Ward Land Use Plan created by Schweyte Architects and vigorously opposed by architects and preservationists, including the Old North St. Louis Restoration Group, Landmarks Association and former St. Louis Place resident Robert Myers. That plan called for the demolition of hundreds of buildings located in the footprint in which Blairmont has been purchasing its holdings. The Pruitt-Igoe site was key to the recommendations of that plan, which seems to be one guide to Blairmont’s scope of activities.
Is the Pruitt-Igoe site key to whatever project Blairmont might be concocting? It’s hard to say without word from the company’s representatives. But it seems that acquisition of that site is essential to any development Blairmont may be planning.
“… Tell me what’s going on in North St. Louis.”
“Nothing more than what’s in the papers every night.” Chuck raised his voice, as if many stupid people had been asking him this very question. “Nothing more than business as usual. Now, to my knowledge, there’s been no excessive speculation on the North Side. Property values have risen, and the various institutions I serve have seen fit to protect their future and the future of the depositor — the little man, Martin — by making some selected and I believe wise purchases in the area. To add to what we already had. And, of course, to replace what we’d sold before we properly assessed the market’s strength. There’s some very choice property down there, and it’s about time the city made something of it. … I think the time is coming. We’re certainly quite satisfied with the crime situation at present.”
– Jonathan Franzen, The Twenty-Seventh City (published in 1988)