We've Moved

Ecology of Absence now resides at www.preservationresearch.com. Please change your links and feeds.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

At the Preservation Board Yesterday

Carnival Supply Building to be Demolished

Yesterday, the St. Louis Preservation Board voted unanimously to permit demolition of the old St. Louis Carnival Supply Company building at 3928 S. Broadway (see "Old Carnival Supply Buildings Return to the Preservation Board", December 18. The motion to permit demolition made by David Richardson is conditional; owner KOBA LP must first obtain a building permit for facade improvements to the building at 3924 S. Broadway.

Alderman Ken Ortmann (D-9th) and the Chippewa-Broadway Business Association had previously opposed demolition of both buildings. At the meeting yesterday, Cultural Resources Office (CRO) Director Kate Shea announced that she had received letters of support for demolition of 3928 S. Broadway from both parties and that CRO was changing its position as well. Five residents of the Marine Villa neighborhood sent letters of opposition. I was the only person to testify against the demolition, following KOBA LP owner Ken Nuernberger (ordinarily a preservation-minded developer). As I told the Preservation Board, no matter what cladding covered 3928 S. Broadway and no matter what happens to the other building, the decision still was one between a historic corner commercial building and a surface parking lot.

A Row House By Any Other Standard...

Another matter before the Preservation Board was also of great interest. The owner of the house at 2248 Nebraska in the Fox Park Local Historic District wants to install aluminum windows on her home. CRO staff said they would have approved the windows, except that the house is part of an adjoined row of houses and that the windows would alter the character of the row. CRO recommended denial, but the Board voted unanimously to allow use of the windows. Richardson and Mary Johnson both stated that they believed that the local district standards applied to fee-simple houses and contained no language that enabled CRO to take into consideration neighboring buildings -- even if connected -- in making a decision about an individual permit.

7 comments:

Chris said...

What are fee-simple buildings?

Anonymous said...

good reason why both Mary One and Rochardson shouldn;t be running the board! WHat does mary one really know about historic preservation.....

Mark Groth said...

I will sorely miss the Carnival Supply building. That was one of the most unique and surreal places in the city when they were still in business. This sucks.

Anonymous said...

Fee is a legal term to describe ownership. Fee simple is the most complete form of ownership, limited only by government taxation, building code enforcement, and eminent domain power.

Vanishing STL said...

This is absolute bullshit! I specifically did not bother to show up or even submit written testimony because The Cultural Resources Office official report published only the Friday before recommended denial of both demolitions and stated on the report cover that Ortman was against the proposal (and because I had a large project due that evening)

Cultural Resources needs to get their shit together and not publish lies. If their was doubt of the Alderman's position they should have called him before publishing. They should not be allowed to change their position and recommendation after the final report is published even if the Alderman changes his/her mind.

This is yet another example of why the City needs Form Based Zoning that could simply outlaw this type of development. Under our current system though I am not convinced that my testimony or the testimony of a dozen more citizens would have made any difference. Whatever the King of the Ward want the King gets!

Doug Duckworth said...

I think Cultural Resources should be able to change their minds, however the ordinance needs to be updated in order to limit demolition for parking, though I think that would have to be enumerated in the local district criteria instead of the enabling ordinance?

samizdat said...

What I would like to is this: Considering that the strip mall in question is practically vacant, why does this guy feel he needs more parking for a moribund site? As I noted before, there are two large vacant lots and metered street parking a few seconds walking distance from the strip mall. How much does he realistically need? Sumpin' rotten in Denmark. As for the twit who wants to put aluminum windows on her house: Lady, I don't know who sold you that bill of goods about these windows, but you are getting RIPPED OFF! Aluminum is an excellent thermal conductor, and you'll feel it come the hardest part of winter. Congratulations on wasting your $$$.