The (Anti) Wrecking Ball

Friends of the San Luis will host a benefit show on August the 27th at the fantastic Off Broadway.  10 dollar cover charge only folks for great bands including the acclaimed Read Headed Strangers, Leadville, Roughshop, as well as the alluring burlesque performers Elle Adorable and Greta Garter!  That’s a lot of entertainment! All proceeds will help maintain the citizen right to appeal demolitions.

Unable to attend the show but want to offer support?  We now accept donations through PayPal!

Why We Continue

On July 27, Circuit Court Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. dismissed the Friends of the San Luis’ petition for injunctive relief.  The petition sought to stop demolition of the San Luis Apartments so that the Friends could file an appeal of the Preservation Board’s approval of the demolition.  Dierker not only dismissed the case, but did so on the basis that the Friends had no legal standing to bring forth a preservation appeal under the city’s preservation laws.

So, the building is gone and the case dismissed.  Why are the Friends of the San Luis still fighting?

If left unchallenged, Judge Dierker’s ruling could set case precedent that citizens and advocacy groups lack the right to appeal decisions of the Preservation Board.  Since the Preservation Board and its enabling laws govern the entire city, all citizens are affected by the decisions of the Board and deserve the right to appeal on procedural grounds.

Why would the Friends of the San Luis care about the right to appeal?  Didn’t you want to save one building?

True, our organization was formed to advocate for a specific building.  Yet our ability to do so was undercut by Dierker’s decision.  The members of the Friends of the San Luis are active in other preservation matters in which the right to appeal is essential.  If people have to go to court to prove our right to participate on every matter, concerned citizens won’t be able to actually fight for our city’s historic buildings.  We must legally clarify that right to protect citizen preservation advocacy.

Okay.  What’s next?

We will file an appeal of Dierker’s ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals on the basis of his narrow definition of who has appeal rights.  That appeal must be filed within 30 days of the ruling.  Then, the Missouri Court of Appeals will schedule its hearing.

What if you lose at the Missouri Court of Appeals?

We could appeal further to the Missouri Supreme Court.  However, if the St. Louis preservation ordinance’s right to appeal is not clear enough to withstand appellant judicial review, then there is a bigger problem than one judge’s point of view.  Then we will know that the ordinance itself needs more clear language protecting citizen right to appeal.

DeVille Rally Next Week

Friends of the San Luis will be holding rallies weekly outside the San Luis until the building falls.   Expect further events related to this fiasco forthcoming.

Next Tuesday August 4th 2009 at 5:30 show your objection and support for our Preservation Ordinances.

We will continue to protest the demolition of the building and violation of city law, the illegal parking lot, and any attempts to suburbanize the Central West End through the creation of a SLU-like defensible space campus.

DeVille Demo and Rally

Via Friends of the San Luis Secretary Paul Hohmann.

Further Coverage of San Luis Debacle

Michael R. Allen, Ecology of Absence. Certainly This Will Be an Impressive Monument

Prior to the 1961 building code, large buildings were restrained by requirements that the majority of wall surface area meet a defined thickness. Materials like concrete panels and glass had to be employed within larger wall systems, and could not be used to clad an entire building. Before 1961, construction of a glass high-rise in St. Louis was not permitted by code. The removal of the old restrictions allowed St. Louis to embrace the building technologies that allowed for fully modern architectural expression.

Mayor Raymond Tucker was an enthusiast for the DeVille project. In a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article from 1961 (“$4,500,000 Hotel to Be Built at Corner of Lindell, Taylor,” September 30, 1961), the mayor raved: “Certainly, this will be an impressive monument to the perseverance of those far-sighted citizens who worked on our code for more than five years.”

Douglas C. Duckworth, West End Word Letter to Editor.  Krewson Should Have Opposed San Luis Plan

The reality is that a better deal could have arisen from this situation without the need for further action. She should have brokered a meeting whereby a developer, and those for preservation, could have established an outcome suitable for all concerned parties.

Alderwoman Krewson would have seemed the master politician resolving a conflict between two superficially opposed parties. She would have received praise from residents and activists for preserving the building while also easing the archdiocese’s alleged parking and land control concerns.

Instead Alderwoman Krewson ignored the Central West End Association’s compelling testimony. With her argument for demolition, Krewson co-opted the language and concerns of many in an intellectually insulting attempt to appear caught in an untenable situation — far from reality.

The DeVille, viewed by the State Historic Preservation Office as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, is considered qualifying and perhaps high merit under local ordinance. These buildings are not to be demolished.

The Platform Editorial Board, St. Louis Post Dispatch.  Citizens should have central role in preservation fights

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.

Rally for Preservation, true “Good Neighbors” Tonight

At the June 22nd Preservation Board Meeting, Architect and designer of the upcoming parking lot, Dan Jay indicated that the DeVille needed to come down because the Archdiocese is a “good neighbor.”

Come tonight and witness the denouement of their stewardship.

DeVille and John Paul II

Rally Rescheduled for Tomorrow 5-8

Due to inclement weather, the rally for the San Luis and our Preservation Ordinances has been rescheduled for tomorrow.  We apologize for the late notice.

July 27th – Rally for the DeVille

Tomorrow, from 5-8 PM at 4483 Lindell Boulevard, we will continue to support Charles Colbert’s acclaimed San Luis Apartments — formerly the DeVille Motor Hotel.  Though on its deathbed, we will continue to advocate for this building and the integrity of our Preservation Ordinances — passed by our elected representatives  on the Board of Aldermen.  Participate tomorrow after work or stop by and look for the large sign.

Be wary and do not accidentially stumble onto the demolition site and fall into the pool.  Please also do not start any fires as the Fire Deparment cannot fit a firetruck on the site.  These are some of the newest reasons, espoused in Circut Court, why the building should come down.

Judge Dierker Rules Against San Luis

On June 22nd certain members of the Preservation Board questioned whether the DeVille Motor Hotel could be listed upon the National Register of Historic Places.  Proponents for preservation cited the State of Missouri’s Historic Preservation Office’s November 2008 staff comments, in response to an eligibility assessment performed by Landmarks Association, indicating the building would be eligible.  SPHO revised their findings, yet did not submit them to the Preservation Board.  Given SPHO’s revised assessment, even under their original November 2008 findings, the DeVille Motor Hotel must be considered Qualifying under the Preservation Board Enabling Ordinance.  If it were individually listed upon the National Register, as the Bel Air was in May of 2009, this building would be considered High Merit.  These buildings are not to be demolished:

“High Merit” means contributing as a major structure to an existing or potential City or national historic district; or, deserving of consideration for single site historic or Landmark Site designation.

Demolition of Sound High Merit Structures shall not be approved by the Office…Merit or Qualifying Structures shall not be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.

Local ordinances were violated, while the Preservation Board appeals process does not halt demolition while the appeal actually occurs, therefore Friends of the San Luis took legal action in order to prevent demolition.  Unfortunately our judge denied this request.  He also ruled against the DeVille on July 24th. Notably, ultra-conservative Judge Robert H. Dierker has experience in these matters:

The Syndicate Trust-Century Building is a “deteriorating, dangerous hulk squatting in the heart of downtown St. Louis” and needs to come down almost immediately, [Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.] ruled Thursday… [Dierker] gave the city and the building’s owner 30 days to submit a demolition plan.  “Dierker said the Syndicate Trust-Century is too far gone to save. It “is a derelict, full of rubbish and literally falling apart inside and out,” he wrote.

“The record is equally clear that there is no way on earth to rehabilitate the building to put it to an economically viable use,” the judge said. “There is not a scintilla of evidence that anyone . . . could obtain a fraction of the financing to rehabilitate the buildings….”(Post Dispatch, 9/14/2000).

The purpose of these local ordinances, which seek preservation of our irreplaceable architectural resources, are evident within the Preservation Board Enabling Ordinance:

The intent of this ordinance is to promote the prosperity and general welfare of the public, including particularly the educational and cultural welfare, through:

A. The protection, enhancement, perpetualion and use of buildings, improvements, parks, sites and natural phenomena as have or may reasonably be expected to have historic or cultural value and significance to the nation, the state or the City;

B. The stabilization and improvement of the value of property and the equity held by citizens in their property by the enhancement of the beauty, convenience and amenity of neighborhoods, parks, streets, public buildings and monuments, and by the enhancement of civic design;

C. The increase of economic resources available for the conservation and rehabilitation of neighborhoods and for the abatement of blight by the encouragement and use of public financial assistance and tax benefits available for the reuse of buildings, neighborhoods and public facilities with primary emphasis on making said resources available to City residents, property owners who by virtue of limited income might otherwise be unable to maintain their property, property owners whose property is not producing a reasonable income, and potential investors in property located in the City;

D. The increase of commerce and prosperity by the protection of the value, convenience, and amenity of property and to promote the tourist trade and civic pride and wider public knowledge and appreciation of the heritage and history of St. Louis.

As the demolition of the DeVille Motor Hotel progress, citizens must realize that the same mechanisms — State and Federal Historic Tax Credits — which led to the rehabilitation of the Chase Park Plaza, Coronado, the Continental Life Building, and the recently opened Bel Air, would have led to the revitalized DeVille Motor Hotel.  Developer Steve Anrod, known locally for Blue City Spaces and the Park East Tower, expressed strong desire in rehabilitation.   City residents must also recognize that this demolition violates not only the expressed intent of the Preservation Board Enabling Ordinance, but individual criteria that determine which buildings (as the intent states) have or may reasonably be expected to have historic or cultural value and significance to the nation, the state or the City.  Demolition approval renders these ordinances inane, thus subjecting future threatened buildings to the political vogue of the day.

Dierker’s ruling  — that citizens have no standing to appeal matters of the Preservation Board to Circuit Court — overrides the Enabling Ordinance’s intent.  Through Dierker, the Mayoral Appointed Preservation Board empowers itself,  making arbitrary decisions absent ordinance enumerated rubric, without redress available through the Preservation Board appeal process or the Courts.  If this ruling stands then citizens have absolutely no legal basis for demolition objection.  With such an abdication of the democratic process — through the denial of ordinances enacted by our elected Board of Aldermen –  citizen-stakeholder concern becomes inane at the detriment of neighborhoods citywide.  With empowered special interests, beholden elected officials, and suppressed citizens, our built environment will not survive.

The DeVille Motor Hotel — a building of expressly high reuse potential and architectural significance under the law — shouldn’t suffer such a wasteful fate.  If not for the malleable interpretation of City ordinance, and political enfeeblement of elected officials, martinis and tourists (simultaneously the parked cars of Rosati-Kain students) could be common at Lindell and Taylor.

Douglas Duckworth

Friends  of the San Luis

566-3465

Friends of the San Luis Seek Demolition Halt

For immediate release: Michael Allen, President, 314-920-5680

JULY 22, 2009                                                michael.ross.allen@sbcglobal.net

FRIENDS OF THE SAN LUIS SEEK DEMOLITION HALT, RIGHT TO APPEAL PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION

On July 17, the Friends of the San Luis, Inc. filed a petition in Circuit Court to obtain a temporary injunction that would prohibit the Archdiocese of St. Louis from proceeding with any demolition work at the San Luis Apartments until our organization has exhausted its legal appeal of the approval of the demolition permit.  While we do not have a final judgment, Judge Robert Dierker, Jr. has denied our motion for a temporary restraining order.  The Building Division issued a demolition permit on Monday, July 20, and preliminary demolition work is now underway.

Our mission is to preserve the San Luis Apartments, and at this eleventh hour we press onward with that basic mission but also a larger one.  After the Preservation Board granted preliminary approval to the demolition by a narrow vote, we intended to appeal that decision through our right under the city’s preservation ordinance.  We think that the Preservation Board’s action was made through incorrect application of the law.  Furthermore, we think that that the Cultural Resources Office report on the issue misled citizens and Preservation Board members through imprecise legal reasoning that made it unclear what laws were in play.  Since the Preservation Board acts only to enforce city ordinances, without clarity of which laws are being enforced there is no due process.

Under the preservation ordinance, however, we have only the right to appeal an approved demolition permit.  We filed the injunction petition to ensure that we were still fighting for an actual building rather than a rubble pile.  Unfortunately, Judge Dierker is not stopping demolition as well as challenging our legal standing to bring forth an appeal of the Preservation Board decision.  Thus begins our larger cause.

Our preservation ordinance allows an aggrieved party to bring forth an appeal.  The preservation ordinance was passed by the Board of Aldermen for the benefit of the entire city, and its stakeholders are all citizens who share the duty of protecting the city’s heritage.  The law enjoins us to become stewards of our architectural heritage, and the Friends of the San Luis gladly step forward to answer that call.

We contend that citizen right to appeal the decision of the Preservation Board is a fundamental part of due process and essential to the enforcement of the preservation review ordinance.  Without the right to appeal, citizen participation has severely limited impact.  Citizens must have the right to act when they feel that the preservation review ordinance has been violated by its own custodians.  The right to appeal is a basic legal principle, and it must be part of St. Louis’ preservation law.

While we hold out weary hope of preserving the San Luis, we must assert the right of the citizen to bring forth an appeal under preservation law.   We believe that future efforts will benefit from legal protection of that right, and that its fundamental sanctity is worth pursuing no matter what happens to the San Luis.

###