Mills Wins NPS Appeal: Parking Garage Coming to Plaza Square

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

According to Mills Properties, a new garage is on the way for 20-30 Plaza Square. When we covered the proposal last October (below), the belief was that such a dramatic change to a National Register of Historic Places District would result in de-listing, disqualifying it from eligibility for state and federal historic tax credits. The credits were considered essential to the redevelopment of the Plaza Square buildings. An initial application had been denied by the National Park Service, which administers the National Register. The gist of the denial was that the district’s listing as a significant example of Modern Architecture required the open spaces between buildings to remain. Mills now says that earlier this month the NPS formally reversed its opinion, granting their appeal and clearing the way for a new garage. A week later, demolition of the raised plaza is nearly complete (above).

Previous nextSTL story:

{rendering of parking garage between Plaza Square buildings 20 and 30}

If a downtown developer gets his wish, another parking garage may soon be under construction. Mills Properties is appealing a denial by the National Park Service (NPS) to allow the construction of a five story parking garage between Plaza Square buildings 20 and 30 and retain the buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. That designation is necessary to obtain millions of dollars in historic tax credits to renovate the buildings.

The Plaza Square complex, as a whole was listed on the National Register in 2007. Connecticut-based Urban Developers LLC, filed for bankruptcy late that year. Urban Developers reportedly owed nearly $21M on a $25M loan used to buy Plaza Square out of foreclosure in 2004. The lender, Natixis Real Estate Capital, Inc., then purchased the apartments through foreclosure for $5M in 2009. Nine months after assuming management of Plaza Square for Natixis, Mills Properties bought the complex in May 2010 for $7.5 million. The sale excluded Plaza Square 50, which had been redeveloped as Blu City Spaces condominiums.

{Plaza Square site plan with parking garage}

As the complex manager, Mills saw a bright future for the nearly 1,000 apartments, but was also aware of the challenges. “We are looking forward to bringing the property back to its original high standards and easy city living atmosphere” Chairman and CEO Bruce Mills is quoted as saying on the company website in 2009. “The last time Plaza Square obtained occupancy above 90% was around 18 years ago when Mills Properties managed the property. We are excited to revitalize this area of St. Louis!”

After taking possession of the property, Mills soon announced plans to sell two of the five buildings. Saying that senior housing would be an ideal fit, there were reportedly multiple interested buyers. Plaza Square 50 would be sold to Capstone Development Group for $3.25M in 2012, and a $20M renovation project broke ground in February this year. Plans are for 149 apartments with a renovation cost of approximately $145K per unit. Following the renovation, Capstone may buy and renovation adjacent Plaza Square 40. This would leave Mills with three remaining buildings.

{Mills Properties owns buildings 10, 20, 30 and 40}

Mills asserts that a parking garage is necessary to avoid yet another bankruptcy at Plaza Square. NPS has initially ruled that such a garage would lead to de-listing Plaza Square from the National Register of Historic Places. The developer says the choice is between an economically viable development with added parking, and buildings that are destined to fail again and again. The garage would front Pine Street to the north and Chestnut Street and the Gateway Mall to the south.

To be eligible for the state or federal credits, a building must be listed in the National Register of historic Places individually or as a contributing resources. A 20% federal tax credit and 25% state tax credit is available for work on the historic building and complementing elements, but not for furnishings, new construction, parking, sidewalks, etc. There are significant caveats and additional guidelines to the program that can be read here. The National Park Service reviews federal applications and the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office reviews Missouri state applications.

Listed as locally significant under two criteria, Mills is arguing that the district is “primarily” listed due to its importance in community planning and development, and only secondarily for architecture. This, the developer asserts, means that a parking garage between buildings 20 and 30 may alter the architectural make up of the district, but not its historic significance. The National Register Nomination Form does not assign a primary or secondary importance to eligibility criteria.

Ultimately, the developer is making an economic argument, stating that practical economic factors are relevant to the district’s historic nature because they are essential to the district’s existence. The garage is needed, they say, to provide acceptable parking minimums and raise $27M to renovate buildings 10, 30, and 40 and build the garage.

{current conditions looking east on Chestnut Street}

{rendering of garage looking east on Chestnut Street}

Mills believes the “fatal condition” of Plaza Square is a lack of parking. Once all buildings are renovated, available parking would be 0.29 spaces per unit (764 units and 218 dedicated parking spaces). The developer describes what would result: “Plaza Square will not be able to hold tenants who need cars (there is no grocery store within walking distance). Middle- and upper-income tenants will go elsewhere. Vacancies will increase, cash flows will decline, and maintenance will be deferred. A lower-income demographic of tenants who do not have cars will increase. As middle-income tenants decline, vacancy will rise, physical structures will deteriorate, and another bankruptcy will be almost inevitable.” The survival of the historic district is stake, Mills says. Either a garage is built or demolition of one or more of the Plaza Square buildings will result in order to provide more parking for the others. For what it’s worth, Culinaria, downtown’s full service grocery is 6-7 blocks away.

In making the argument for the garage and retaining the National Register listing, Mills offers a number of contortionist views on Modern architecture, including: An adequate supply of parking is a requirement for the “tower-in-the-park” approach to community planning and housing. There is no absolute ban on above-grade structured parking in Modern Movement architecture. Modern Movement design emphasizes the importance of green space and social space. The roof of the garage will be landscaped with grass, shrubs, bushes and trees and provide more green space and social space than is found on the existing ground level.

{Plaza Square was built as a middle class alternative to the suburbs}

In addition, Mills argues that the garage will seek to minimize the architectural intrusion. There would be 20-foot setbacks from buildings 20 and 30, allowing for landscaping between the structures. The garage facades would be covered in ivy and the concrete garage would be painted an off-white to match the existing buildings. The garage height of five levels above ground would be lower than the neighboring churches and much shorter than the 13-story apartment buildings.

The NPS has suggested that below grade parking would be acceptable here if the landscape above remained largely unchanged. For their part, Mills believes that the garage proposal satisfactorily addresses concerns related to preserving what makes the complex historic. They go as far as to argue that the garage “mainly differs from the underground garage in that it will not be exclusively built at or below grade. We do not believe that the sole factor of the Garage being built partially below ground and partially above ground should be decisive to eliminate the historic character of buildings 20 and 30 Plaza Square.” The garage would be five stories above grade and one below.

{detail of proposed garage between Plaza Square buildings 20 and 30}

{existing courtyard conditions}

It’s easy to sympathize with the economic argument. It’s important that these buildings be economically viable. It’s a challenging development, and if this were simply a question of a building permit needing a zoning exception, it may be a more straightforward issue. However, the National Register designation holds meaning for a reason. In a practical sense, it’s all about accessing tax credits. To do so, the project must retain historic integrity. When details as small as window moulding can determine eligibility for tax credits, it’s hard to imagine the NPS acceding to the garage plans.

{a signature outcome of the city’s urban renewal efforts, Plaza Square has struggled to keep residents}

To be sure, the National Register is an economic tool, as much as it is a statement about our society’s shared values regarding our history and old buildings. And we’ve seen this issue play out in St. Louis before. The Midtown Saucer was targeted for demolition before being reborn as a Chipotle and Starbucks. Although the developer had received millions in public funds to rehab the Council Plaza historic district of which it was a part, they argued that it wasn’t really historic, but just included for some reason. St. Louis University was allowed to demolish the majority of the National Register listed Pevely Dairy complex in 2012, leaving only what was determined to be the most significant of the structures. In that case, the Lawrence Group argued that the complex wasn’t really historic and that it couldn’t be found in any books on historic architecture in St. Louis (yes, really).

In short, developers love the National Register listing when it provides access to public funds, but not so much when it outlines limits to redevelopment. In this case, it appears obvious that the addition of a five-story garage would greatly alter the landscape of the district and the appeal will likely be denied. Whether or not this is a good thing for downtown St. Louis is likely another conversation altogether.

Plaza Square Apartments, St. Louis – National Register of Historic Places Registration Form by

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • John R

    Anyone have a handle on the redevelopment progress? I see the garage is now open but I’m not sure if its too soon to tell how leasing is going and how tenants are liking the changes at City View. Also, I think some work is being done on Building 40 — the most NE one — which I believe is the one that Capstone may have been taking a look at for the additional senior building. I’d love to hear any insights ion what’s going on at Plaza Square.

  • STLEnginerd

    Good. Not in love with the garage in general, but at least they satisfied the spirit of the process. Winning the allowance on appeal and keeping the building on the registry. Any other outcome would have been a slippery slope for future potential developments.

    I think the posters here make some good suggestions for green roofs and partial underground, but at this point that seems unlikely. I would at least like to see an outward facade tretment to the north and south faces to make it mor presentable. I have my doubts on the planters shown in the renderings.

    I will also expect Mills to deliver on viable marketrate apartments at plaza square which if they suceed would by itself make the sacrifice to the parking gods worth it.

  • moe

    I can see where many would say more parking is needed, especially for the younger ‘hip’ crowd, whereas for a senior complex not so much. Though I would push for at least 2 floors underground and the entire top greenspace/park. From the sketch, it looks like they only want 1/4 to 1/3 to be quasi-greenspace. By that I mean patio/entertainment area. That’s not very park like to me. I picture all grass, trees, gardening space and no cars at all on top level. Now THAT might be a draw.

  • Adam

    and i don’t understand why they couldn’t have worked something out with St. Johns. or maybe i do; it’s the archdiocese.

    • RobbyD

      Parking at St. John’s is already contracted out and the number of spaces is limited. Contrary to the opinion of some, the archdiocese is quiet on board with assisting the community and finding ways to make money. Bulk charitable giving is not easy when you neither print money, nor have the ability to take it from the population.

      • Callie

        The St. John’s lot is managed by S&H parking. S&H is a nightmare to deal with. I park on St. John’s lot, but I hate having to deal with S&H.

        • Adam

          S&H doesn’t own the lot though, do they? i would imagine their services could be replaced.

      • Adam

        too limited in it’s current state, of course. i was thinking of structured parking on the lot. and i certainly am not suggesting the archdiocese donate the lot to mills–only for an arrangement whereby a garage for both church-goers and residents replaces the lot. maybe the archdiocese leases the land to mills cheaply, mills builds a garage, and st. johns gets some number of free reserved parking spaces. as an aside, though, the archdiocese didn’t seem that concerned about helping the community when they dropped a humongous parking lot on the San Luis.

  • Adam

    a garage on every block… it’s only a matter of time. good luck renting those garage-facing units, Mills.

    • STLgasm

      I was thinking the same thing. Who would want that view? Especially in a high-rise where the main selling point IS the view?

      • tpekren

        Someone who can’t afford the higher rents on the upper floors. Can understand the point but also assume a price point will be introduced.
        Have to agree with Moe, the whole top deck should be park/patio/etc. Can understand if they don’t add the pool but what they showed in the original renderings is cheesy.
        Alex, since the original post which is most of this post to begin with do you have anymore updates on whether Mills is on track to sell a second tower for senior housing? Do you know if they made a changes to the renderings to get the sale made on the third attempt?

        • Callie

          I lie I Building 20, and park on St. John’s lot. The Senior housing building is nearing completion. I was told that the first floor should be open to view apartments in March. There is a sign on the building with contact info for the building. I was considering moving over there, until I found out Mills was building a garage. Parking at St. John’s is not ideal. They allow 25 spaces for the building. I love my apartment in Building 20, but not too happy with the exterior of the building. It really needs work. There are three buildings being renovated now.