[ back ]
Krewson should have opposed San Luis plan
To the editor:
In supporting the demolition of the DeVille Motor Hotel (the San Luis Apartments) at a recent Preservation Board meeting, Alderwoman Lyda Krewson set a dangerous precedent, indicating that if a building owner was unwilling to sell or rehabilitate, it could be torn down, regardless of whether or not developers support rehabilitation. Essentially this abdicates the entire purpose of historic districts and our Preservation Board: the promotion of cultural and architectural economic resources for the betterment of the neighborhood and broader community.
Krewson’s decision is contrary to established trends. St. Louis’ decades of rehabilitation improved the quality of life through job creation and an expanded tax yield, thereby reinforcing St. Louis as The Place to Be. Her argument erodes this sense of place for the unknown whims of a single property owner. Spelled out in ordinance, the needs of the city have become subordinate to political ambition.
The most incendiary moment of the nearly six-hour Preservation Board meeting was not the actual 3-2 vote of the Preservation Board but rather when Alderwoman Krewson indicated she does not like the idea of a parking lot, that it would damage the pedestrian environment and streetscape and that the building should be torn down anyway. Krewson said we have only one scenario: a vacant building or a parking lot. Interestingly, Alderwoman Krewson attended a neighborhood forum just days later in which she argued for neighborhood planning and density.
The demolition of the DeVille contradicts her alleged philosophy. Alderwoman Krewson says the Central West End needs density, yet she supports temporary, sporadically-used car storage. This use provides no residents, detracts from the pedestrian environment, says nothing positive about our identity as a city, devalues surrounding historic buildings and the greater Central West End, and finally generates negligible tax revenue.
Compellingly, Steve Anrod, who developed the Park East Tower, testified that this building could be saved through a 99-year lease, should the archdiocese wish to retain ownership. This seems like good planning and an amicable solution for all parties involved — one that Lyda should have supported given her professed ideology. Yet through her immediate acceptance of demolition, she threw all options aside.
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.
Ignoring local ordinances as de-facto development czar of the 28th Ward, Alderwoman Krewson’s testimony and overtures for rehabilitation would have held great authority. Rather she went against city law and her constituency, and may resign herself to a position of grandeur among countless other illegitimate aldermen who chose careerism at the detriment of our once “Fourth City.”
Given St. Louis’ numerous deplorable demolitions — including 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) — advocacy against shortsighted political hedonism must continue.
As the archdiocese prepares to demolish the DeVille, responsibility must be placed appropriately. Political careers that arrive through the expense of irreplaceable architectural resources — despite the errant, unnecessary reality of the decision — are contemptible.
Douglas Duckworth
North Hampton
[ back ]
