This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, June 7, 2013 - Interviewing people for my two-part story on the legacy of the Rev. Lawrence Biondi as president of St. Louis University, I found people on campus making the same comment repeatedly: He did a good job with buildings, making the campus far more attractive than it was when he arrived, but he didn’t have the same success working with people.
That conclusion has drawn rebuttals from preservationists who say that Biondi’s record with buildings hasn’t been that great either.
Primarily, their objection is that while the SLU campus may look better in some respects, the improvements came at a high cost: the demolition of buildings that were distinctive in their own right and were the victims of a Biondi power play.
For example, Jeff Vines, co-owner of STL-Style, wrote:
“I definitely think there is room for debate in regards to Biondi's treatment of the built environment. VanishingSTL offers an alternate look at Biondi's effect on midtown's physical evolution over the years, and it's not all that pretty.
“As you can see, many great buildings have been lost under Biondi's reign, and in most cases they have been replaced with parking lots, empty fields, fountains or iron gates -- hardly an 'improvement.' SLU has been successful in isolating its campus from the surrounding urban fabric, destroying many salvageable, beautiful buildings and decimating occupied neighborhoods in the process. I think including some photos of the pile of rubble that was the Pevely complex or the countless vast fields of grass would provide a more realistic and balanced picture of Biondi's true legacy of the built environment.”
And Dan Pistor put it this way:
“I have to disagree with you on the fact Biondi has been friendly to buildings surrounding SLU’s campus. A series of demolitions (has) occurred over the years and buildings have been replaced by parks and fountains.... Multiple buildings east of Grand between Olive and Washington are gone for surface parking lots, the Pevely building is crumbling, and an entire neighborhood was wiped out behind the medical building for recreational type activities. So I think it's misleading to state he has been kind to buildings (while) in fact he has been their enemy. Due to the demolitions, it is a district of less users, therefore depleting the vibrancy it once had 20 years ago. It has become essentially a suburban island surrounded by an urban setting. Does SLU look better than 20 years ago? I guess it depends who you ask, the person preferring a suburban office type environment, or someone who likes being in a urban city environment.”
And on Facebook, Andrew Torch put it succinctly:
‘Bad with buildings, worse with people!”
What do you think? Feel free to continue the discussion with comments on the main story or on this one.