Forest Park Southeast National Register of Historic Places Application

So I managed to dig up the detailed application (all 486 pages of it) for Forest Park Southeast and the National Register of Historic Places. Among other things, I found that my home was built in 1897 and not 1909 as listed by the city Assessor's Office. If you're interested in a particular property in FPSE (north of Manchester) take a look. It's a big document, but addresses are in alpha/numeral order.

{high-rise residential in Toronto}

St. Louis never experienced the love affair with high-rise residential during the 1950's-70's that dominated urban residential construction in much of Europe, Canada and elsewhere. But the city does have Plaza Square bordered by 15th Street, Olive, 17th Street and Chestnut downtown.

Perhaps it was the short and inglorious 18-year life of the Pruitt-Igoe complex that helped to ensure more would not be built. But the absence of high-rise residential likely owes much more to middle-class flight from the city, demand for single-family suburban housing, systematic redlining of urban mortgages and the building of the Interstate highway system. Because high-rise residential composes a significant proportion of Toronto's housing stock, the problem of aging towers there is an immediate concern.

Toronto Mayor David Miller wants to see the city's high-rises revitalized, linked to mass transit and surrounded by community gardens. The effort has an excellent website at www.towerrenewal.ca. The Tower Renewal Guidelines PDF provides a good summary. What can St. Louis learn? For one, the Tower Renewal's "Prime Directive" reads:

In the past, urban renewal was synonymous with the destruction of existing urban fabric and the massive displacement of inhabitants. The demographics of high-rise apartment towers in Toronto are largely skewed towards economically challenged tenants who cannot afford to re-locate to market housing during renewal activities. This limitation also applies to tower owners who cannot afford extended periods of vacancy while renewal work is being performed. In view of this reality, these guidelines focus exclusively on exterior retrofits according to the Tower Renewal Prime Directive:
Zero displacement of occupants.
Limited intrusion into the day-to-day lives of tenants.
Minimal impact on vacancy rates.

High-rises or not, such a recognition of the impact of (re)development on existing residents would be a simple, but extraordinary step for Paul McKee's NorthSide. But back to high-rise residential. Research cited in the about PDF estimates the replacement cost of a typical concrete slab 20-story tower at $50-60M. A comprehensive retrofit is estimated to cost $4-5M. In addition to increased energy efficiency, retrofits could consist of over-cladding and combining small units into family-sized units.

One-sixth of the Plaza Square Apartment towers have been redeveloped as Blu CitySpaces by developer Steve Anrod. The six towers are now listed in the National Register of Historic Places which makes them eligible for historic tax credits. The towers date from 1961, have a total of 1,090 units, were designed by Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum and feature underground parking.

Today the towers are not in danger of demolition and not showing significant deterioration. But their future is uncertain. Plaza Square was never entirely successful. Just four years after completion one tower was converted to a retirement community. Today, the five towers that have not been redeveloped are once again in foreclosure. It is the second foreclosure process since 2004. With the condominium market slow and many new apartments downtown it's unlikely that the remaining 800+ units will be redeveloped soon.

What is needed to successfully redevelop Plaza Square? Additional mass transit options? Redevelopment of the Kiel Opera House and Ford Apartments? Relocation of the NLEC and other homeless support centers? Or are St. Louisians simply still not ready to celebrate mid-century high-rise living?


{another view of Toronto high-rises}


{a view from Blu CitySpaces}


{another view from Blu CitySpaces}


{interior of Blu City Spaces}


{exterior of Plaza Square Apartments}


{image from Plaza Square promotional brochure}

Missouri Circuit Courth San Luis Demolition Decision

You don't care to read the entire opinion (it's only five pages)? Here is the basic legal reasoning employed in the dismissal of the suit:

Plaintiff presents evidence of no direct injury to its own interests, pecuniary or otherwise, as a result of the demolition. Plaintiff's office is not within the historic district embracing defendants' building; it owns no property adjacent to defendants' building, or otherwise so situated as to be exposed to any injury from the demolition process; none of its board members have any different stake in this lawsuit. Nevertheless, plaintiff contends that, as a resident of the City of St. Louis, it has standing to seek enforcement of the City's preservation ordinance.
...
In other words, in order to establish standing, the plaintiff (a) must have suffered an “injury in fact,” (b) must show a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (c) must show that it is likely that the injury may be redressed.
...
It is patent that plaintiff lacks standing. Plaintiff has not shown any pecuniary or personal interest, other than its generalized interest in preservation of "historic" structures in the City of St. Louis, that is directly in issue or jeopardy and which can be the subject of some consequential relief. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, nothing in Ordinance 64689 confers standing on anyone who wants to contest a demolition permit. The ordinance employs the classic administrative law phrase "person aggrieved," in describing those who may seek review of a demolition permit before the Preservation Board. The ordinance itself recognizes that only a person "aggrieved," i.e., who has standing, may prosecute an appeal.

The proposed demoltion of the San Luis Apartments building in the city's Central West End has been documented on a number of blogs and found some coverage in the local media. Click on over to www.noparkinglotonlindell.com for the complete rundown and check out the "related posts" section of this post (click on post headline if this doesn't appear).

My bet is that the Preservation Board is persueded that rehabilitation costs are excessive (the Archdiocese claims $300/sq. ft.) and grants a demolition permit. I think they will also be massaged by the "green" parking lot (beware of urban oxymorons!). The problem is that the Archdiocese cannot take advantage of historic tax credit and other incentives as a tax-exempt entity. The only way to redevelope the San Luis is for the church to sell. They do not want to do that and I don't think we can make them.

The building has already deteriorated since the Archdiocese removed the residents. If demolition is denied the church may only need to stall until an exterior panel or two falls from the building to receive an emergency demolition permit. Classic demolition checkmate.

Review of Proposed Demolition for Parking Lot at 4483 Lindell