Lets All Thank and Praise Biondi for Turning Midtown into West Co. (Florida: house, neighborhoods)

[trailblazer33]

Originally Posted by flynavyj

Oh dear god he wants to bulldoze some old buildings, it's going to destroy the character of south city! While we can all get angry about SLU destroying the old Camp Jackson site and turning it into a sprawling university campus, you can't deny that much of the life that midtown has is as a direct result of SLU. Numerous restaurants, local businesses and the like are a result of SLU's progression further into essentially defunct areas. The relative safety of that area is has improved significantly since my mother graduated from there during the 1970's, and it will likely continue to come around. The tax base created by the university being in St. Louis City is also of large financial benefit to the city, and last I recalled, if Fr. Biondi is attempting to run a private institution he has to consider finances as a key component of his operations...this school isn't going to pay for itself, and I'm sure he doesn't want to watch it go Tango Uniform on his watch either...if the building was in a good location with proximity to the university, and the price was right for the purchase then let them purchase it and use it as they see fit...even if that means demolishing the building, they own it! I'm sure if renovations were and modernization was going to be as simple as running some romex wiring, adding oxygen hookups, and some fiberoptics that it would have seemed more feasible. But if you have a structure that hasn't been occupied in a significant period of time, doesn't fit your current plans of use, and isn't going to be a "quick flip" in terms of converting it to your intended use...then you bulldoze, and move on.

By the way, if the building was of such significant importance to city dwellers, why didn't they form a "salvage" organization to purchase the building prior to the SLU debacle? Then the city promoters could have done whatever they chose to with the building, turned it into condos, lofts, or a gigantic crack house...If no one else was purchasing the building, then you can't be mad when someone else buys it and does what they want with it.

A lot of what you say is unsubstantiated. The building actually was occupied until the last few years. And it's easy to make a neighborhood safer when you bulldoze everything and displace entire neighborhoods, turning large tracts of Midtown into places devoid of people.

[flynavyj]

There are plenty of places SLU hasn't touched North of campus that are in absolutetly terrible shape.

As to the tear down, if no one was planning on using the building for anything, and there had been no interest in purchasing and preserving the building, then I don't necessarily see the issue. If it's going to cost $500k to repair a smoke stack, how much more does it cost to renovate and use the entire building? I can't imagine that it could be done for the extra $250k that we're alleging teardown costs would be...

As to doing whatever you want to do with a building you own...I can understand stipulations...personally if the building had requirements that any purchase required renovation and retention, then I think SLU should have avoided purchasing the building in the first place. IF they did continue with the purchase, and pursued a tear down anyway...I , (Like Arag) would have issues with the comission who rolled over like a bunch of nancies, vs the folks who wanted the tear down in the first place.

[aragx6]

^Let's be clear: I have issues with both. I'm just very much used to Biondi's BS.

Also, you're forgetting that they still have the additional construction costs of building the new complex, not just the 250K difference you mentioned. Yes, I think it's likely that rehabbing the buildings in question would cost more than building anew, but again, this isn't about economics. If it were simply about $$, they would build on the empty lot that they've already graded for new construction across the street. That's by far the most economical solution.

SLU is being a bad steward of the neighborhood and the city as a whole and students and alumni alike should be ashamed of that.

[BoomBoxing]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^Let's be clear: I have issues with both. I'm just very much used to Biondi's BS.

Also, you're forgetting that they still have the additional construction costs of building the new complex, not just the 250K difference you mentioned. Yes, I think it's likely that rehabbing the buildings in question would cost more than building anew, but again, this isn't about economics. If it were simply about $$, they would build on the empty lot that they've already graded for new construction across the street. That's by far the most economical solution.

SLU is being a bad steward of the neighborhood and the city as a whole and students and alumni alike should be ashamed of that.

This. And threatening to move to West County if they didn't get their way? That is just downright childish. The city should've called their bluff. They built that giant research center that's only like 6 years old, and have this massive campus and they are going to rebuild all of that on expensive land in West County? Sure, SLU, let's see you go ahead and do that!

By the way, is anyone else still mad about the San Luis? Remember, that was another historic structure that the Catholic church tore down in the name of "progress." What did we get for that? A parking lot. More people "get it" today than they used to, but the powers-to-be still do not. I hope it changes before we keep losing more and more of our historic architecture and city scape.

[flynavyj]

Any building that survives long enough can eventually become historic, and not all are really worth saving...I'm not a "tear it down" type of guy, and believe that preserving historic architecture is important, and should be considered important by developers and architects alike.

That said, saying cost isn't an issue is a bit short sighted. I totally understand that a 250k difference doesn't incorporate new construction...but the cost of building new can often be significantly less than rehabbing old, especially when you're attempting to preserve and maintain a historic structure. A friend of mine owns a home in Old North, and I know she had pretty extensive requirements in order to maintain her historic home tax credits...I'd imagine things are similar for local historic landmarks if they're recognized.

I don't know if I think SLU is being a "bad steward". But I can understand that they're not doing things solely for the best interest of the city. I don't know the financial situation of the university, and i highly doubt anyone else here does either...if they do, i'm sure they're not at liberty to divulge that information.

To move the entire SLU campus to West county would cost significantly more than any one building, and likely be a terrible investment for the maintenance already performed at the current SLU campus. My initial read of the article however made me believe they were considering locating the medical school or at minimum this medical center at the West County location. This wouldn't be terribly cost prohibitive, especially if they were able to get the land for a decent price. They would also be free of many other restrictions that would be imposed on a historic building, and they could build the unit from the ground up to suit their current and future needs. This might have been a bluff, but I don't know if I'd be willing to bet the house on that.

[kshe95girl]

SLU's endowment is public knowledge.

"An increase of the University's endowment from $140 million to $880.3 million (as of June 30, 2011). "

Biography of Lawrence Biondi, S.J. : Saint Louis University University : SLU
Note the name on the bio.

[aragx6]

flynavy -- NextSTL pointed out that SLU isn't even allowed to unilaterally make the decision to move their hospital. The state of Missouri has a say in the location of all hospitals, so it's fair to say it was complete and total bluster.

And yes, all buildings eventually get old, but the process for becoming listed on the National Register of Historic Places is pretty time consuming and it must be proven that the building isn't just old but that's it's important enough to "be worthy of preservation." That's exactly what the designation means -- worth saving.

It should also be noted that the National Register designation places no obligations on private property owners. "There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property." So your argument that they'd have to follow extensive requirements in a rehab is incorrect.

All this info is available on the official National Register of Historic Places Web site: National Register of Historic Places Fundamentals: How to List a Property in the National Register -- National Register of Historic Places Official Website--Part of the National Park Service

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by aragx6

flynavy -- NextSTL pointed out that SLU isn't even allowed to unilaterally make the decision to move their hospital. The state of Missouri has a say in the location of all hospitals, so it's fair to say it was complete and total bluster.

And yes, all buildings eventually get old, but the process for becoming listed on the National Register of Historic Places is pretty time consuming and it must be proven that the building isn't just old but that's it's important enough to "be worthy of preservation." That's exactly what the designation means -- worth saving.

It should also be noted that the National Register designation places no obligations on private property owners. "There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property." So your argument that they'd have to follow extensive requirements in a rehab is incorrect.

All this info is available on the official National Register of Historic Places Web site: National Register of Historic Places Fundamentals: How to List a Property in the National Register -- National Register of Historic Places Official Website--Part of the National Park Service

One wonders if the idiots in charge are unaware of all the historic tax credits that are available to folks that restore historic structures.

[aragx6]

^Absolutely. Those tax incentives are 90% of the reason Wash Ave looks as it does today. Prior to 1998 when they were put in place, it was still prohibitively expensive to rehab those gorgeous old warehouses, but the tax credits singlehandledly changed the economics!

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by aragx6

^Absolutely. Those tax incentives are 90% of the reason Wash Ave looks as it does today. Prior to 1998 when they were put in place, it was still prohibitively expensive to rehab those gorgeous old warehouses, but the tax credits singlehandledly changed the economics!

This is slightly off-topic.....this article was in the local paper this morning.
This is what is deemed historic in the town I live in, I hope someone steps forward to save it.
Owner of historic Ocala home applies for demolition permit | Ocala.com