Home

Summary Testimony

Delivered on behalf of the opposition at the Preservation Board's March 12 meeting:

Last time we met, Tim Boyle said that you have a difficult decision to make. I respectfully disagree. If you take the criteria for demolition and apply them to this case, it's very clear that the request to demolish 3539 and 3541 Hartford should be denied.

These buildings are irreplaceable. Once they're gone, they're gone. Homes like them will never be built again. The two properties in question are two-story, brick single-family homes that add stability to neighborhood. They're completely viable and in good repair. In fact, people are currently living in both buildings, and 3539 Hartford has recently undergone fairly extensive renovation including a $4,800 new roof, a $3,500 interior painting job, and a $2,300 set of front steps and rails.

These houses are part of a solid row of homes on a good block where property values are rising. They're also in an area that's a potential historic district and demolition would jeopardize that by damaging the integrity of the block face. The criteria for demolition were set up to protect homes like these. It's unconscionable to tear down historic homes in good condition to create a 20-space parking lot for a chain store in a strip mall.

The overwhelming majority of residents are opposed to this proposed demolition. Three hundred people have signed a petition against it. We're not anti-business or anti-development. We just don't buy into the notion that all development is good development. Good development involves weighing the costs of a proposal against its potential benefits. In this case, these properties contribute much more to area as homes than they would as 20 parking spaces.

The proposed demolition will change the urban landscape that those of us who live near the South Grand business district see everyday. Tim Boyle does not live near South Grand or even in the city for that matter. All of the Tower Grove East board members who voted to conditionally support the demolition live north of Arsenal in an area that tends to identify itself more with Tower Grove Park than with the business district. Not a single person who lives near Grand south of Arsenal has spoken in favor of the demolition, with the exception of the current owners of 3539 and 3541 Hartford who stand to gain financially from the demolition and are moving anyway.

The two people who will be most affected by your decision couldn't be here today. Frank Tomiser, who has lived in the house next door to the proposed demolition for 37 years, is in the hospital undergoing heart surgery. His wife, Rosemary, is with him and recovering from colon cancer. Their oldest son is suffering from terminal brain cancer. Frank and Rosemary are obviously going through a lot, and now they're faced with having their neighborhood taken away from them house by house.

Mr. and Mrs. Tomiser are model citizens. They are the kind of people who make our neighborhood a great place to live, the kind of residents this city needs more of. They have stayed in the city through thick and thin, and now their loyalty is being rewarded with a proposed demolition that would lower the value of their home by at least $25,000 according to two independent appraisals.

There is no guarantee that the Bread Company will expand if this demolition is approved. In fact, that expansion is looking more and more unlikely. Kelly Cook (district manager) and Bridget Westoff (PR) have both been adamant in telling residents that the Bread Company wants to be a good neighbor and will not expand its store on South Grand if it means straining its relationship with those who live nearby.

At the beginning of the February 26th hearing on this matter, a letter from the Saint Louis Bread Company's Vice President of Development, Thomas Howley, to Mr. Jeff Mudd was presented as evidence of the Bread Company's intentions to expand the South Grand Store. We contact Mr. Howley and were quite surprised to find out that he lives in Massachusetts and rarely visits St. Louis. When we asked to meet with a more local representative of the Panera Bread Company's development division, we were placed in contact with Mr. John Gilroy. Dr. Kathy Wyrwich had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Gilroy last week. Mr. Gilroy, like Kelly Cook and Bridget Westhoff, said that the Bread Company will not expand this store if the demolitions would generate ill will with neighborhood residents. I think it's pretty safe to say that that's exactly what the demolitions would do.

Mr. Gilroy asked that copies of the signed petitions that were presented to this Commission at the last meeting be faxed to him so that he can present these to corporate officers at a meeting that will be held tomorrow, and we have done so.

No one on either side of this debate has claimed that the Bread Company will leave South Grand if it doesn't get these parking spaces. Furthermore, if the Bread Company expands, the Sears Portrait Studio will be kicked out, so the net gain for the business district is questionable.

Mr. Boyle spoke about the ripple effect a larger Bread Company would have. His claim that the Bread Company will attract people throughout the region is ludicrous. The Bread Company on South Grand is exactly like the 300 other Bread Companies. No one is going to make a special trip to South Grand to buy asiago cheese bread when they can get the same thing at a location closer to their home or place of employment.

In contrast, the people who will move into 3539 and 3541 Hartford if they aren't sold to City Property Company *would* have a ripple effect. They'd pay property and earnings taxes. They'd send their kids to school in the area and shop at businesses on Grand. They'd add a lot more to the neighborhood than a parking lot would.

There is not an immediate need for more parking. Those in favor of the demolition have offered no hard evidence that there is a parking shortage on South Grand. Several people have methodically counted available parking spaces at peak times throughout the week, and all of them have concluded that there is ample parking. It's a matter of perception versus reality. People who are used to driving in an urban environment have a more well-developed parking radar than people who aren't.

I greatly appreciate the people who travel from outside the city to shop on South Grand. Signage pointing out the existing parking lots would go a long way toward helping them easily find parking spaces. People who choose to shop or eat on South Grand do so because they enjoy the urban atmosphere. Part of what makes South Grand a unique destination compared to other business districts is the fact that the residential area comes right up to the commercial district. It would be a mistake to replicate the all-too-familiar asphalt terrain of suburbia on South Grand. The foot traffic created by people who have to walk a couple of blocks to get to their destination is a good thing.

Even if there were a real parking crisis on South Grand, we're talking about adding 20 spaces dedicated to the Bread Company — not Kinko's, not the Futon Express, not any of the other businesses that have complained that they need more parking.

We already have enough open space to use for future parking needs without tearing down more homes if we use it in a smart way. In particular, the surface lot behind Commerce Bank covers almost an entire city block and rarely has more than a few cars parked on it. Fran Fanara, a group manager at the bank who's in charge of the Tower Grove branch, told me that Commerce is planning to build a much smaller bank at that location and will almost certainly sell all the land that the current parking lot sits on when the construction is completed.

We have plenty of time to think this issue through. I ask that the board consider implementing a moratorium on demolition until we have a master plan for accommodating future parking needs instead of haphazardly creating parking lots by acquiring and demolishing homes as they come on the market.