Citizens should have central role in preservation fights
Beginning stages of demolition on the San Luis Apartments. Brittanie Williams/Post-Dispatch
There’s a sad passing on Lindell Boulevard’s rich streetscape in St. Louis’ Central West End. Demolition crews have begun razing one of the city’s distinctive examples of mid-20th Century modernist architecture.
The structure, situated at North Taylor Avenue, long has been known as the San Luis Apartments. The Archdiocese of St. Louis, which owns the property, used it as housing for low-income senior citizens starting in the mid-1970s.
The building began in 1963 as the 226-room DeVille Motor Hotel. It remains an E-shaped marvel of glass and concrete panels with curved white towers and quartz crystal aggregate that sparkles in the sunlight.
It was designed by Charles Colbert, former dean of Columbia University’s School of Architecture, and for more than 50 years a prominent figure in urban planning and residential and school design.
The building steadily emptied in recent times and has been vacant for more than year. In June, the St. Louis Preservation Board granted preliminary approval of a permit to demolish it.
Local preservationists filed suit seeking to enjoin the demolition. On Monday, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker dismissed the case. Now the jackhammers sound.
The San Luis was not to everyone’s taste. Then, again, neither were the row houses and Second Empire masterpieces surrounding Lafayette Park when more than 60 years ago, their demolition was sought because they were deemed “obsolete.” Now they are among the most sought-after homes in St. Louis.
The fight to save the San Luis was compelling, advanced by savvy citizens. They told the San Luis story imaginatively, explaining its architectural importance.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation weighed in the building’s behalf, and even the circuit court concluded that the structure was eligible for listing on the National Registry of Historical Places.
The battle, though apparently lost, now has a more urgent dimension. The court, in dismissing the case, took an unreasonably narrow view of who, under St. Louis’ historic preservation ordinance, has legal “standing” to challenge decisions to demolish historically significant structures. Being a city resident is not enough, the court ruled.
That decision is at odds with the ordinance’s express purpose to promote preservation citywide; it grants right of appeal to all who are “aggrieved.” The ruling should be broadened on appeal and clarified with further legislation.
There’s little risk that such a definition would promote frivolous cases. Great expense is involved in pursuing legal proceedings involving historic preservation. Parties seeking relief can be required to post a bond to compensate the property owner in case they lose.
Historic preservation boards have broad discretion. Their decisions seldom are disturbed by the courts. But when they’re wrong, citizens should have a clear path to intervene and pursue judicial review.
This is not an instance in which an architectural gem was readied for demolition for frivolous reasons. The building was idle, in need of substantial repairs and had no foreseeable outside prospects. The cleared property will be used to support cherished community institutions — the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis and Rosati-Kain High School — providing much needed parking for both.
Not every architectural significant building in this community can be saved. But preservation decisions should be made on the merits — and not compromised by legal technicalities. St. Louis citizens should stand for no less.
The archdiocese has the funds to buy and bulldoze a perfectly good building. Meanwhile, parents in north county are being told that the archdiocese doesn’t have a dime to subsidize Catholic education in parishes full of working class kids, and that if the parish can’t pay the full cost, they must close the school. I guess it’s easier to talk about social justice somewhere else in the world than to practice it in your own back yard.
Very thoughtful piece, but taking exception with this:
“This is not an instance in which an architectural gem was readied for demolition for frivolous reasons.”
The building DID have outside prospects that the owner was not interested in pursuing. And the Archdiocese acknowledged several times during testimony that the new surface parking lot does not solve their alleged parking problems; rather it’s a good faith effort to the neighborhood.
Considering their parking crises, they should really be building a parking GARAGE on that site, with maybe a Catholic supply and cafe/restaurant on the ground floor, really play up their whole campus idea.
Putting another building in its place would fulfill the city ordinances that the surface parking lot violates. Considering all the viable options that were/are available, that parking lot is THE definition of frivolous.
What a shame…looks like a very cool mid-century building- As an avid preservationist, its disappointing when we lose great historically significant buildings such as this one.
http://www.MidCenturyModernPS.com
I can see the Archdiocese not wanting to spend the money maintaining a vacant building. And I for one was never terribly impressed with this building.
But they had interested parties, AND the parking lot won’t (by their own admission) meet their needs, and they have financial needs elsewhere.
Really not an example of forward thinking.
What’s more, the Mayor may be catholic (and presumably a driver behind the demolition), but many residents of the CWE are not. And they have money and influence. This will not be forgotten, rest assured. Combine this with the Century Building downtown, and Paul McKee on the north side, and it looks like the Mayor is going out of his way to tick off most of the City. What’s next I wonder?
Steve Anrod, who developed the Park East Tower, testified for rehabilitation of this building. His testimony was categorically ignored even though he suggested a 99 year lease should the archdiocese wish to retain ownership of the land. Moreover, the San Luis provides MORE parking than the proposed replacement parking lot. Finally, the maintenance issues with the building result directly from the Archdiocese’s lack of proper stewardship. If we allowed the demolition of historic buildings because the current property owner was unwilling to pay for upkeep, then most of our City wouldn’t exist. We have Historic Tax Credits, and many other financial incentives, to ease the cost of renovation. Given strong interest was expressed in rehabilitation, by a proven developer, there’s no excuse for demolition.
The State of Missouri indicated this building was eligible for individual listing upon the National Register of Historic Places. Under the Preservation Board Enabling ordinance, these buildings are classified “High Merit” and not to be torn down. Rather than address this issue, Dierker simply indicated we didn’t have standing. In actuality all city residents have standing before the Preservation Board — and if they in fact don’t, then the Preservation Board has carte blanche because a democratic appeal process does not exist. If the courts won’t provide redress then the ordinances must be changed.
Alderwoman Krewson, who selectively ignored the buildings historic status for the purpose of appearing the victim, claims she values urban planning and density. Instead of supporting the ideology which she professes, we now have a parking lot supplanting an historic building which could again be a magnificent hotel surpassing Joe Edwards’ Moorise on Delmar. Krewson said at a June 27th neighborhood planning meeting:
…if we do some really good planning…better equipped to deal with opportunity…new buildings, renovated building, additional density… key to the success of this neighborhood. Density, we really have to have people here…to support all of the businesses and all the things we all love about this neighborhood. I’m most worried about…take a good site…and decide one square building will be fine.
St. Louis has lost far too many buildings for shortsighted reasons. Our planning process must be fundamentally changed while we must have leaders who understand that these are not simply building materials, but socioeconomic resources that grant St. Louis a comparative advantage over other cities. After losing the DeMenil Building (1976), Real Estate Row (1983-1984), the Ambassador (1996), the Miss Hullings Building (1997), the Marquette Building Annex (1998), Stix School (1998), the Herkert & Meisel Building (2001), the Century Building (2004), and the Livery Stable (2007), St. Louisans must object to these errant decisions and the erroneous reasoning which compels these objectionable outcomes.
Labeling buildings built while I was in Jr. High as “historic” sure makes me feel old.
This editorial speaks to how credible our local preservation community has become. We have come a long way since the reactionary days of Landmarks Association’s 11th-hour finger-pointing. Today’s preservationists are “can do” people who are rehabbers, architects, developers, government officials, aldermen, and other people who do more than just talk. The San Luis may fall be we are seeing a more forward-thinking preservation movement arise in St. Louis. The San Luis group was active and engaged a long time before the 11th hour, and used the issue to raise bigger concerns (like citizens’ rights under preservation law). Good job! The old guard is falling.
For the record, Landmarks Association was an active and early supporter of this preservation effort. The “Friends of the San Luis” who brought suit is a broad-based organization who worked/works closely with Landmarks and many other preservation organizations and preservation-minded individuals.