Category Archives: city of st. louis

StL City Q&A

Posted on by
5

next-american-city

In late September, physician UrbanNexus came to St. Louis for a look see.   Prior to a round-table luncheon discussion, viagra they asked a diverse group of us questions about our city like:

What is St. Louis doing right?

Why do you stay?

What is our biggest impediment to progress?

Read our answers here.

I was proud to be a part of this discussion, but even more rewarding was finally being introduced to the magazine Next American City.   From content to writing to layout, it is an exceptionally professional and fascinating publication.  I look forward to it landing in my mailbox.

Little Things Mean A Lot

Posted on by
3

al-clare-meadows-01

Morgan Ford at Poepping Street
South St. Louis City, MO

Subdivision entrance monuments, like the one shown above,  are always interesting to observe.  They are often the first thing to go up when a new subdivision is developed, and the design and materials chosen either reflect the aesthetic of the subdivision or wind up at great odds with what resulted.  But mainly, entrance monuments are about place-marking, a means of declaring to passers-by (and in the early days of development, potential buyers) that “we are a proud and unique community.”

al-clare-meadows-02

One morning at the end of July, I pass by the entrance to Al-Clare Meadows and see one of the signs down and scattered.  I’m assuming it was a car because of the extent of the destruction, and how suddenly it occurred:   Tuesday it was standing, Wednesday it was splattered in the neighbor’s yard.

Based on current costs of masonry repair and labor, I naturally assumed this entry marker was eternal toast, that the pieces would be carted off, the homeowners lawn repaired, and Al-Clare would continue unperturbed with a lopsided entry.

I made this assumption because of where it’s located and its age.  The small-to-modest size tract homes of Al-Clare Meadows (the name came from combining Alberta and Clarence Dalton, the subdivision developers) are a bit south of the River Des Peres, and a scootch away from the St. Louis City/County line.  So it’s in that nebulous part of town that’s not quite city, not quite county; not quite old, not quite new; not really distinct but certainly unoffensive.  Honestly, people tend to overlook this unassuming part of town unless they – or someone they know – live there.

al-clare-meadows-03

It took a couple of months of waiting, but there it is, rebuilt!

(SIDE BAR How odd that the pile of rubble remained undisturbed that entire time… I assumed outsiders would just help themselves to some masonry because that’s what tends to happen in some of the older city neighborhoods.  Hell, they even purposely yank down walls to get at it… but that’s another story, right?)

When considering everything that had to transpire for that marker to be rebuilt (patience, funding, protection, masonry craft, etc.), my heart swelled with gratitude for this neighborhood’s pride of place that made it possible.  And I was embarrassed by my rash assumptions about the neighborhood and the fate of the sign because it was snobbism, plain and simple.  I am humbled by what I don’t know, and I’m thankful that – within the big picture – something so comparatively small really did matter to the people it represented.

So every time City Hall pulls another WTF? out of their trick bag, I think about the resurrected Al-Clare entry monument, because it is things like this that truly reflect and represent what makes St. Louis City so special – the people and their love of place.

2 More Gasometers Coming Down

Posted on by
36

st-louis-gasometers-01

Interstate 44 near Shrewsbury Exit
St. Louis, MO

As reported by the Webster-Kirkwood Times, the two gasometers that mark the boundary between St. Louis City and County are currently being demolished.

The natural gas storage tanks owned by Laclede Gas were erected in 1925 and 1941, and have been inactive since 1995.  They sit on just under 6-acres of land, which was purchased by a development firm that plans to grade and seed the soon-to-be-vacant property so it looks “nice” while trying to attract a new owner to build on the site.

st-louis-gasometers-02

I’d like to know if the property developers even considered selling the property as-is, just in case there’s an entity out there that would like to re-use these iconic and impressive structures for other purposes.   Considering the current commercial real estate market, they may be sitting on this property for a bit, so they have some time play with, and could possibly save themselves demolition fees if a buyer wanted the gasometers to remain.

Are there other uses for such unusual structures?  Vanishing STL covered the demolition of another gasometer in St. Louis City, and in another post about its history, he shares information about how Vienna, Austria re-purposed four of theirs.

st-louis-gasometer-03

Granted, the highway has locked these gasometers into a remote location surrounded by industrial, so that could limit the scope of new use, but limitations are what inspire some of the most compelling ideas.   It’s depressing that, yet again, there is a willful lack of imagination and possibility about high-profile structures that are part of the Greater St. Louis history.  And there is one more opportunity to squander our last remaining gasometer near Goodfellow, in North St. Louis City.

I wanted to document how most of us experience these twin towers: sturdy yet delicate-looking guide posts along the highway that change size, color and texture with the distance, time of day or weather.  Their absence will matter, and they will be missed.

The South Grand Driving Test

Posted on by
8

I usually avoid driving through Grand Boulevard between Arsenal and Chippewa because it’s sluggish and congested.  News of the Great Streets Initiative taking it down to 2 lanes with a center turn lane from Arsenal to Utah caused instinctive cringe and a double-down on “must to avoid.”

Steve Patterson’s thoughts on the Grand Test made sense; why do it for only 6 blocks?  I only use South Grand south of Chippewa, which is 2 lanes all the way with no center turn lane. Then again, it’s an even mix of residential and commercial, so not the same kind of traffic nightmares as in Grand Loop, proper.

But what’s the point of conjecture when I could just test drive the test lanes?  And so I did on Thursday afternoon, at 4:30-ish.  I exited Hwy 44 at Grand, headed south towards home, and began filming at 4-lane Magnolia Avenue, ending just past Chippewa Street, where it remains 2-lanes until it ends at Carondelet Park:

I like it! It took only 3:58 minutes (or 1.5 Beatles tunes) to get from Magnolia to Chippewa during the start of rush hour traffic.  The center turn lane in the heart of the South Grand Loop eliminated the obstacles that stop traffic or have us swinging fast, erratic lane changes to avoid stopping.  Other than the one red light I ran, it was my smoothest and most care-free tool down this stretch that I have ever experienced.

It was actually rather distracting when it resumed 4-lanes past Utah, especially since I knew the wonky change back to 2 lanes at Chippewa was imminent.  If they’re serious about enacting real change, I want them to commit to 2-lanes all the way from Arsenal to where Grand ends at Carondelet Park.

I took their survey, which has interesting questions, but sometimes seems manipulative to a forgone conclusion.  And they do not allow for comments like, “commit to 2-lanes all the way from Arsenal to where Grand ends at Carondelet Park.”  But I applaud their effort, look forward to the results, and urge you to experiment with it while it lasts.

.

Tiny Medical Buildings

Posted on by
4

01-7449-w-florissant-01

As a kid, I was always fascinated by this building because it was just my size.  It was like a little doll house plopped onto the black top parking lots of the buildings surrounding it on West Florissant in Country Club Hills.   When I went back to visit it in 2002 to take the photo above, I was struck by how antiquated the notion of a single doctor working out of a cracker box seems today.  For at least the last 30 years, our doctors are bunched together in large office buildings built for just that purpose, and the care within can be just as impersonal and confusing as those buildings.

This 1,152 s.f. building from 1956 was the office of Dr. Hubert S. Pruett (who once played with the St. Louis Browns!). In 1963,  the space was labeled The Sheldon Medical Building, as if it were to house more doctors, but it remained the private practice of Dr. Pruett until Dr. Samuel G. Ramirez took over in 1975.

02-9717-manchester

With the Sheldon back in my consciousness, I started noticing the plethora of tiny medical buildings dotting St. Louis.  Like the one above, at 9717 Manchester, in Rock Hill.  In 1953 it was the office of  dentist Albert Thomas.  By 1963, chiropractor Elizabeth J. Lochner took over, and took care of patients well into the early 1990s.

There are many intriguing things about these tiny medical buildings. For instance,  they tend to be at the far limits of St. Louis City and the inner-ring suburbs, so were built in the mid-century with cars in mind.  Private practice doctors followed the population out to St. Louis County, and while their patients were buying bigger homes, the doctors were content with less than 2,000 s.f.

Most interesting of all is that even in the midst of our square foot gluttony, most of these match boxes are still used today, and quite often the use stays in the health care realm.

03-9846-manchester

This office at 9846 Manchester in Rock Hill fits the Tiny Medical Building M.O., but actually opened in 1952 as Woodard Rug Cleaners.  But by 1963, the true nature of this building was realized when Alfred W. Moller opened his veterinarian practice.  Hey, human or animal, it’s still medical care, right?  It became West Side Animal Clinic in 1972, and as you can see, they are still there to this very day.

04-2730-watson

An early example of what would become the standard of group physicians is shown above, at 2730 Watson in the Clifton Heights neighborhood of South St. Louis City.  From 1958 – 1980 it housed multiple physicians and optometrists (for humans), then it became a veterinary clinical laboratory until the mid-1990s.  Today, the office facing onto Southwest Avenue belongs to a chiropractor, so it went full circle back to the humans.

These medical offices also highlight the rapidly changing nature of 20th century American medical practice, which is really more the story of health insurance.  Up to the 1930s, doctors made house-calls, but with the advent of Blue Cross & Blue Shield insurance from 1930-1940, companies could buy into tax-free policies for their employees, and the need for more doctors increased.  With this growth of supply and demand, commercial insurance companies were finally ready to join in, increasing the number of insured from 20,662,000 in 1940 to nearly 142,334,000 in 1950.

These tiny medical offices were built for general practitioners who finally had a chance to make real money and care for their patients with total autonomy.  But by 1964, the numbers of doctors going into general practice were dwindling, with the focus moving over to medical specialists.  A solution for both general and specialized medicine to financially prosper was enacted in 1973 as the Health Maintenance Organization, and became the large HMO buildings so many of us visit today.

05-3185-hampton

This huge shift in the medical industry to group health care made these tiny medical buildings obsolete for private practice.  It’s a deep irony that some of these buildings now house medical specialists, like the office (above)  at 3185 Hampton in South St. Louis City.  But here’s a spin on this type of building: it was built in 1962 for American National Insurance, who used the building until 1990, when it became the City Spinal Center.  So even when the contents start off differently, these mid-century modern cubes just broadcast a medical nature.  Or actually, it would be merely a snapshot, as this medical period only lasted roughly 15 years.

05-7810-natural-bridge-road

I am continually impressed with the adaptive re-use of these tiny buildings; most don’t stay vacant for too long.  Then again, depending on where they are, they are also highly vulnerable to demolition.  This little gem of concrete, cubist mid-century modernism (above) at 7810 Natural Bridge Road was being prepped for demo when I took this photo in 2005.  It started life as a doctor’s office, and by the end of its run, it held a carpenter’s shop and a travel agency.  So, the building was still useful, but it was in the area surrounding the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and was taken down for some vague reason still unresolved.

06-9300-gravois

But the majority of tiny medical buildings remain to this day.  Shown above is the place built for dentist Conrad J. Zoeller in 1954, at 9300 Gravois Road in Afton, MO.  He worked from this 748 s.f. office until the mid-1990s, and it was recently a hearing center until it  – or rather its parking lot – found a whole new use as a produce stand!

07-7449-w-florissant-02

Today, because of the health insurance industry, the medical profession is in worse shape than its former buildings.  Doctors can’t practice as responsibly and freely as they did when in these little stand-alone buildings, while their buildings keep finding a way to help humans and their pets.

Even the little building on West Florissant that first opened my eyes to this short chapter of medical architecture still has a healthy, beating heart.  It is now a hair care center, ingeniously divided up as a barber shop through one entrance and a beauty salon through the other.  Here’s hoping that in the next couple of years, our health care system can transition into adaptive re-use as flexibly as its former buildings do.

.

Come to the Anti-Wrecking Ball, August 27th

Posted on by
1

See photos of the event!

full flyer.aiThe San Luis is toast, but what about the next building?

Our quest to clarify St. Louis City preservation laws – and assure that those laws apply to everyone – continues.   As we move this legal argument to the Missouri Court of Appeals, our tenacious lawyers need to get paid.   So we’re putting on a show to raise money.

Why We Continue

And here are the wonderful folks joining us on this fundraising journey:

anti-wrecking-ball-bands

Off Broadway (thanks to Kit Kellison for supporting the effort and donating the club for the night) opens its doors at 7:30, and it all begins at 8 PM with Elle Adorabelle and Greta Garter performing before and after each band set.

anti-wrecking-ball-burlesque

Leadville kicks off the music, followed by The Red-Headed Strangers and Rough Shop.  While the stage is popping, enter a raffle to win from a fine selection of  StL – Style merchandise.

It’s $10 at the door, and every cent collected that night goes to the Friends of the San Luis, LLC legal fund.

anti-wrecking-ball-paypal

We would much rather you come and party in person, but if you can’t and still support the effort, we gratefully accept donations through Pay Pal.

.

“The Law Enjoins Us To Become Stewards of Our Architectural History”

Posted on by
2

coming-soon-nothing1

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.

No Parking Lot On Lindell

UPDATE

The San Luis is coming down.
Read the 5-page court decision here.
See photos of the demolition here.
And here’s the summary of why the court battle will continue.

City of St. Louis Citizens vs. Their Politicians

Posted on by
1

cwe-parking-lot

Even though the Preservation Board voted on June 22, 2009 to allow for demolition of the San Luis, the story has a few more chapters to be written.

The 20 people who testified against the surface parking lot proposal (of which I was one) were armed with facts, figures and sound rationales to demonstrate why the proposal was unsound or should be reconsidered.  According to the by-laws of the Preservation Board, we had every reason to believe we were systematically following the rules that allowed for public discourse and debate so that the Board could make an informed decision based on the facts of the case as well as the greater good of the neighborhood and the City of St. Louis.

We followed procedures even though Alderwoman Lyda Krewson had been graciously candid in telling some of us before the event that the outcome was a done deal.  Considering the difficult position she had been put in over this issue, it was considered one of two things:  a desire to be finished with this complicated topic or a poker player’s bluff.  Either way, we followed through according to the system set in place by our City.

Ald. Krewson was granted the final testimony of the night, and she acknowledged the struggles she had (a parking lot is not the best and highest use of this property) with her ultimate decision to side with the property owners.  She said her final decision was based on these facts:  The property owners could not feasibly rehab the building, would not sell the property to someone else and needed the parking.

Only 5 of the 9 Preservation Board members were in attendance.  Alderwoman Phyllis Young cited the same reasons as Krewson for her “yes” vote.  Board member David Richardson acknowledged the merits of all arguments, but wanted to fairly follow the “letter of the law” about an ordinance written in 1974 (while acknowledging that this ordinance needs to be revised to current standards) as his reason for a “yes” vote.   The tie-breaking vote came from Richard Callow, who contributed no explanation for his “yes.”

My immediate thoughts were of aldermanic courtesy in play and that the property owner had been granted the right to do as they saw fit with their property.   On the surface, fair enough.  But this “property rights” decision did not jibe with previous decisions by the city.

First to come to mind was the Loughborough Commons issue, wherein the majority of property owners on S. Grand Avenue  did NOT want to give up their property for a retail development, but were overruled by Eminent Domain.  I’m sure any of you can cite another fast dozen cases of property owner rights being overturned for a special interest.  And this line of thought was a contributing factor to the lingering feeling that “the fix was in.”

In the hours and days after the decision, there is much investigation into any procedural and/or legal improprieties and inconsistencies that may exist around this issue, and we will continue to follow the letter of the law in appealing this case.  But there is no escaping the white elephant in the room:  the truism of St. Louis politics is that it’s all about WHO the property owner is and how they benefit the people in power.

City of St. Louis Citizens vs. Their Politicians

There is a distressing disconnect between the citizens of St. Louis City and their elected officials over what is best for renewing and revitalizing this city.

(This irony must be noted: on the very same night as the San Luis issue, the citizens of Ballwin experienced the exact same disconnect with their elected officials over the Schnucks issue, so this problem is not exclusive to the City.)

As we have been taught – and as state and federal laws clearly state – one must participate in the democratic process in order for it to work.  Or as it is plainly stated by the man on the street:  if you don’t vote then don’t complain.  But from the bubble-burst of the Nixon presidency on down, citizens are personally discouraged by political deviation from the stated will of the people.  Examples off the top of my head:  the voters of Missouri had twice voted down legalized gambling and concealed firearms, and how did these issues end?  So, when the people have spoke but the politicians are ignoring them, there’s no denying that other factors beyond democracy are in play.

Nationally, this unease with political disconnect resulted in a majority vote for “change we can believe in.”  As with so many matters, the City of St. Louis is decades behind the curve, but this has not completely discouraged the 355,000+ people who purposely choose to live here because they know the advantages of living here and believe in its potential.

To remain concentrated on the San Luis issue, I will set aside many other glaring examples of disconnect between our citizens and politicians.  When it comes to matters of city planning and development – two issues that ultimately affect every taxpaying citizen in tangible ways – there are thousands of citizens who actively work through multiple channels to contribute to the improvement and stewardship of St. Louis.  That the city needs improving has been absolutely acknowledged by both the citizens and City Hall, but how to do this creates continual discussion.

Ideally, I should have been able to say “this creates continual DEBATE,” but that’s not how it actually plays out.  All too often, it’s a case of concerned citizens flapping their jaws into a vortex of silence.

Come election time, our politicians want us to be engaged, and cite this engagement as one of the reasons they are so proud to represent and fight for this city.  But once we’ve voted them into office, the party line is disconnected.  Even though they take our calls and read our letters, they don’t seem to comprehend what we’re saying.

When it comes to planning and development issues, St. Louis City advocates are very clear and concise about the What and Why.  We are overly detailed about documenting, educating and debating why we are for or against any given issue.  That so many people continually join in these discussions and take action through the proper channels underscores how important these issues are.  It is heartening and inspiring to know that St. Louisans care this deeply for their city.

And in exchange for all this public discourse that is closely monitored by City Hall, we get… silence.  Or even more maddening, we get responses that tend towards “Citizens Against Virtually Everything,” or something to the effect that we just don’t understand what is needed to elevate the prospects and standing of this city.

If our politicians truly believe we don’t get it, then respect us enough to EXPLAIN your decisions.  We taxpaying and voting citizens may not fully understand the stresses and complexities of the issues you deal with, so tell us.  We assume you do not make any of these decisions lightly, so share with us the processes that went into the final decisions.  We may not like the outcomes, but the truth is ultimately easier to deal with than confusion or collusion.

And collusion is the natural conclusion we come to when you refuse to educate on or include us in the decisions that impact our lives and the prospects of this city.

Do not dismiss this as emotional, knee-jerk reactions; the stereotype of “backroom St. Louis politics” persists because of documented history of its existence, and because of the continual reticence to change this way of doing business.   This is a “big small town” and everyone knows everyone’s business.  The tension comes from those who work within the shadow system vs. those who engage in an open and public manner as prescribed by the written laws.

It is true that if one wishes to reform the system, they must work to change it from the ground up.  New generations of passionate, educated and informed citizens are already doing so, and you can safely bet on greater numbers of them relying on existing laws and engagement of the citizens as a means for steering the City of St. Louis into the realities and possibilities of the 21st century.

When it comes to St. Louis City planning and development, of our politicians and representatives I ask these questions:

  • How often do the concerns and visions of your citizens influence your decisions?
  • How often do the concerns and visions of special interests influence your decisions?
  • Do you feel that there can be an agreeable compromise between citizens and special interests?
  • If you could change one thing about the St. Louis political system, what would it be?

Of our St. Louis City residents I ask these questions:

  • How often do the concerns and visions of the politicians reflect your beliefs?
  • How often do the concerns and visions of special interests reflect your beliefs?
  • Do you feel that there can be an agreeable compromise between citizens and special interests?
  • If you could change one thing about the St. Louis political system, what would it be?

To stay current on the San Luis issue, bookmark No Parking Lot On Lindell.

Today’s the Day we Save the San Luis

Posted on by
Reply

todaywestop_color

Today is when the Preservation Board reviews the proposal to demolish the San Luis.

Today is the day you can show up to persuade the Board to deny this permit.

It is especially important that we turn up in large numbers, because in some political corners they consider the permit a done deal.

If you’re tired of Old Boys Network politics as usual, please come and support this effort.  The Board will make its decision ON this night, so if you want to immediately know the fate of the San Luis, come to:

1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200
Downtown St. Louis, 63101
4 PM – ?

For all the latest information, visit No Parking Lot On Lindell.

One Week to Stop a Parking Lot

Posted on by
Reply

oneweektostop_color

On Monday, June 22, a demolition permit for the San Luis goes up for review before the St. Louis Preservation Board.  The owners want to demolish the building at Lindell & Taylor in the Central West End for a surface parking lot.

If this doesn’t sit right with you, we need you to speak up.
Here’s your options:

E-mail the Preservation Board now

Attend the June 22nd meeting

E-mail Lyda Krewson, the alderwoman of the ward the San Luis stands in

E-mail the operations officer at the Archdiocese

To assist you in speaking up on this matter, we have a form letter you can use to send to any of the people above. Cut and paste it verbatim, or use it as a starting point to express your own views.

Click for the sample letter

If you want the Preservation Board to deny a demolition permit, it is important to say so.  It is crucial that the Board and the owners of the building understand that this surface parking lot proposal negatively impacts the potential and the spirit of St. Louis City.