1990-08-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes - Plan Coillssion June 27, 1990 Page 5 . The Commission approved the formal application for designation and recommended it to the Plan Commission and City Council. Ms. Van Amburg stated that her Commission had chosen to propose adoption, in part, of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as revised in 1990 as the Landmark Standards for the Tivoli Building. Ms. Van Amburg then introduced Mr. Esley Hamilton, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, who summarized for those present the Statement of Historical Significance of the Tivoli Building. He explained that the Tivoli Building, built in the Art Deco style, is, for many reasons, the most prominent building in the University City Loop. The first floor of the building houses the movie theater and nine retail shops, including restaurants. The upper three floors of the building contain apartment units, now condemned from occupancy. Mr. Hamilton stated that the building was built for the parkview Realty & Investment Company in 1923 and was designed by Newhouse & Bernham, an architectural firm which designed other movie houses of the period. Mr. Hamilton believes that a unique feature of the building's design includes its design as a combination theater, commercial and residential structure. Today, the Tivoli is one of the oldest surviving movie theaters in st. Louis and one of only four of the period still showing films on a regular basis. Mr. Hamilton concluded by stating that loss of the Tivoli through demolition, inappropriate rehabilitation, or continued neglect would constitute a major architectural loss to the Delmar Loop. Ms. Van Amburg, Ms. Judy Little and Mr. Hamilton explained that the Tivoli was already a part of a National Historic District and detailed the importance of local historic designation. They explained that national designation only became significant if use of federal funds were involved in rehabilitation; local designation affects the issuance or denial of permits according to local standards. Commission members asked several questions of the representatives of the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Safe asked questions to clarify the Historic Preservation commission's duties which do not include overseeing compliance with national standards. Ms. Kreishman stated her agreement with a statement made earlier by Mr. Hamilton that landmark designation may actually decrease the value of a property rather than increase it because of the tax credit possibilities designation creates. Members of both Commissions discussed the similarities and differences between the proposed designation and other local districts such as the University City Education District. Mr. Safe asked what measure of prevention the proposed designation would afford the city against demolition by neglect or crude building repairs. Ms. Little responded that the plans for any rehabilitation must be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Also, the Building Commissioner has the power to enforce the city's building code and property maintenance codes against a certain level of neglect. Mr. Safe did state that he is not supportive of this type of legislation, but does hope