Back To Square One

This just in from Wes Johnson of the SN-L: Developer Puts Brakes On Heer's Building Due To Square Delays.

St. Louis developer Kevin McGowan said his Blue Urban company has spent $600,000 in development and design work for the Heer’s Tower and still intends to see the project to completion.

But the twists and turns over the square’s historic designation are making it difficult for him to proceed with an early June construction start.

“It’s difficult for me because we have tenants that want to know what their front yard will look like,” McGowan said. “At this point, I don’t know. What we thought we were going to be selling to our customers turns out not to be the case.”

Mayor Tom Carlson said he was not aware of McGowan’s decision to delay construction of the Heer’s project.

City Economic Developer Mary Lilly Smith said she wasn’t concerned about the Heer’s project delay.

The view of the square in the postcard looks pretty good now, eh? Click on it to make it bigger. Just think of all of our money being spent downtown: car parks and movie theaters and brick streetscapes. I wonder how long are we going to have to be reminded of those 350 people on Vision 20/20 who decided on this course of action? 350 people out of a population of how many? I hear Vision 20/20 blamed, I mean used as justification for everything that goes on downtown? Will we ever get to Vision 20/20? Will it ever be finished? Or is it a moving target?

I may be tagged as an 'akinner', but even I know you don't throw good money after bad. I've seen a lot of changes happen to my hometown lately, and while I haven't been against all of them, I wonder about some of them.

Could anyone blame McGowan if he made the city take back Heer's and just focused on the McDaniel and Woodruff Buildings, and maybe some more? (Warren Davis: Come back, all may be forgiven.)

Does this mean anything?As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this [ x ] nomination [ ] request for determination
of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and
professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [x ] meets [ ] does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend
that this property be considered significant locally. Signed Claire F. Blackwell, 6 September, 2002.