So long, San Luis: Judge denies request to halt demolition
Judge Robert Dierker today denied last-ditch efforts to save the San Luis, the Central West End apartment building that local preservationists have been trying to spare from the wrecking ball.
In a five-page opinion issued this morning, Dierker rejected a request by the Friends of the San Luis for a halt to plans by the Archdiocese of St. Louis to knock down the 11-story building, saying that the group had no standing in the case, and that, even if it did, the Archdiocese had received all proper permits from the city and has the right to knock down a building it owns.
“(The Archdiocese) have a constitutional right to put their property to a reasonable use,” Dierker wrote. Read the full opinion here.
And the Archdiocese is wasting little time. “Soft” demolition of interior structures and windows began last week (see pictures here, courtesy of St. Louis Patina). The building itself will be taken down over the next couple of months, said Dan Jay, lead architect on the project. It plans to build a surface parking lot on the site. Jay said the Archdiocese was glad to have the lawsuit behind it.
“We, of course, believe the building needs to come down,” he said. “This was an obstacle.”
Michael Allen, president of the Friends of the San Luis, said the decision was disappointing, but not unexpected. He said his group will likely appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, “as soon as possible,” challenging Dierker’s ruling that people who do not own a building have no standing in its fate. If that opinion stands, it would be a blow to preservationists citywide, Allen said.
“It’s more about saving our rights than saving the building at this point,” he said.
P.S. Are you on Twitter? We are. Keep up with the latest in St. Louis-area real estate and development news by following here.
(4 votes, average: 2 out of 5)
Loading ...
They really aren’t wasting any time with the demolition either. I happened to drive past it this morning it looked like it is well under way.
This is a 2-fold preservation issue, the destruction of historic brick/mortar and peoples’lives. Where did all the people go that once occupied the San Luis? Did they receive relocation assistance? Did they find comparable housing? Where are they?
The City has a severe affordable housing crisis yet they continue to issue demolition permits for home that could be reasonably rehabbed. This incessant behavior of destroying residential units enmasse without equal replacement affordable housing is asenine and just another form of URBAN RENEWAL; and, we all know what that means….po and black folk removal.
The Archdiocese and Paul McKee are closely affiliated…ummmmmmmmm birds of a feather do flock together.
I have been in that building and it is falling apart. It needs to come down. I can’t believe the hateful comments. I guess that is a sign of our times. People can say anything on the web because they know they can’t be punched in the mouth.
Falling apart? Have you seen some of the buildings in Old North St. Louis that have been fully renovated, preserving both our history and some affordable housing?
McKeereadmylipsNIMBY: I assume by “affordable housing” you mean cheap rent for a bunch of lazy bums who want a free ride. The building was vacant. All the people that once lived there simply moved away at some point in the past. No one was ‘relocated’ for this demolition. How do you know whether or not the San Luis units, when occupied, were affordable for ‘po folk’ anyways? I doubt there’s much affordable housing for ‘po folk’ in the Central West End, anyways. If there’s a lack of ‘affordable housing’ then the po folk should go back to school and pay attention this time around.
Preservationist can not simply go around pointing their finger at buildings and insisting they stay. I love the old buildings, but if they want to decide what stays and what goes, they need to back it up with money and buy the property. Money is something that the church understands and responds to.
b,
It was senior housing, and while, yes, most of the residents had slowly moved out (passed away), they still evicted SOME elderly people, who were forced to move far away to suburban retirement homes.
The residents were involuntarily relocated after 2005, and some even filed suit to stay. This was a building with Section 8 status tied to the building, not the residents, and the status was oddly moved to a north county building in 2005 via a rider in the HUD appropriations bill. Imagine the change in quality of life for residents moved from the Central West End with its doctors, pharmacies and public transportation to north county. These were largely people without cars — a lot of elderly people. Why did Cardinal Ritter make this move?
Theres places in city where the “disadvantaged minorities” can received free room,board and food.It is called the city jail and the city work house.
All of this discussion is now moot. My guess is that no one offering his 2 cents here was involved in any part of this process and, therefore, if he is a wise person, wouldn’t offer commentary as fact regarding something about which he knows little or nothing. The city and the judicial branch have spoken. It’s over. Though I’m sure this means very little to a group of people who still have “Kerry Edwards” stickers on their cars.