Good news for our Dragon alumni - St. Mary's has purchased the St. Michael's Apartments on Spring and plans to demolish them to construct a baseball field and tennis courts.



If my memory serves me, those apartments are pretty ugly (non-historic) and always appeared to be poorly managed, so it should stabilize the neighborhood. The purchase will give the school six extra acres for its campus. The school is also adding A/C and is putting down synthetic turf on its football field.

Should be great improvements for the school. The apartments are now fenced and ready for demo. The fire department has been playing in them for the last month, but the latest word is around November demo could start. A new stone arched entryway is also being built into the fence at the Grand Ave. parking lot entrance and a fancy new stone plaza at the Grand Entrance to the school was built over the summer and dedicated to the toughest teacher I have ever had, my senior English teacher, Fr. O'Shaughnesy. The neighborhood is very excited to lose the problems of the apartments and see St. Mary's make an investment to keep students coming.

BTW, the info I posted is from an article in the Business Journal. The article mentions that all of the new facilities they've added over the last few years could help them get enrollment up to 450 from its current 400.

Exactly which apartments are being torn down? I used to live around there back in the '80s (South 38th street). I realize times change, but that was a decent area 20 years ago. It's a shame for the City to lose more residential units.



Can anyone come up with a map?

Framer wrote:Exactly which apartments are being torn down? I used to live around there back in the '80s (South 38th street). I realize times change, but that was a decent area 20 years ago. It's a shame for the City to lose more residential units.



Can anyone come up with a map?

They're pretty ugly 60s apartment buildings - you can see them on Google street view.

shadrach wrote:I recall a frightening, tiny blown out 'strip mall' by the tracks. It had an IMOs in it. They could buy that too.

Yeah, that always seemed like a weird place for retail to me.

shadrach wrote:won't cry over the loss of those. Glad to see St. Mary's on the move. I've always feared they'd be looking to sell rather than buy.



I recall a frightening, tiny blown out 'strip mall' by the tracks. It had an IMOs in it. They could buy that too.

My sentiments exactly. I was always afraid St. Mary's would one day decide the neighborhood wasn't a good fit for them, just as many other St. Louis area private high schools have done over the years. So I'm very glad to see the school expand and get rid of neighborhood nuisances in the process. Those apartment buildings won't be missed.



And St. Mary's can feel free to buy that shady strip center as well. Anything St. Mary's could do with these parcels would be a better and higher use of the land. One time I got some of the worst pizza I've ever had in my life at the Imo's there, so I wouldn't miss it at all.

The buildings have been stripped out for a few months now and the police and fire departments have been using them for training. Full scale demolition began this morning. Two buildings will be demolished a day, and all of the brick and concrete will be processed on site and used as fill. Environmental Operations is the demolition contractor and Kozeny-Wagner is the site contractor. I'll post some pics later.

Is that the old 'Spring Projects' apartment complex? If that is true, what a boost for the southside to get rid of that crime ridden complex. The complex was from Gustine to the edge of St. Marys property, if I am not mistaken. When I was in high school, I used to fear driving around there. Reminded me of 'Boyz in the Hood' down there.

As an alumnus, I can tell you this project is very exciting. It's been years since the apartments behind the high school were safe. From the picture, the retail strip will remain.

The strip center will remain along with all of the other apartments. However, St. Mary's would like to acquire the rest of the block in the future.

Of course I'm glad St. Mary's is staying in the City and expanding, but I hate to see the City lose so many housing units.



It seems that many of you who would ordinarily fight tooth and nail to save a densely populated City neighborhood are awfully happy to see this one destroyed. Isn't it better to turn around a troubled neighborhood, rather than simply bulldoze it? Do the buildings have to be 100 years old before anyone cares?



BTW, I lived in one of the neighboring apartment complexes for three years, back in the 1980's. I realize things have changed since then, but I still have a soft spot for the area.

I lived near here for 21 years and walked to St. Mary's all four years I went there and had to come through this neighborhood very often. Believe me when I say it is better off going away and going to other good use.

So anytime a neighborhood becomes dicey, we should just kick out all the tenants, tear down all the buildings, and build a (private) baseball diamond?



Sounds like suburbanization to me.

I do not think that this complex would have a future regardless of what anyone says. First off, who would buy it, renovate it and make it nice. Not likely! Second, I am sure the inside of these units, were trashed. Talk to any former or current resident (that has been there for a while) of the Bevo neighborhood and they will tell you that development destroyed their neighborhood. I believe it was a mixed income or section 8 development. I may be wrong. I'm sorry, but that is not want you want in your neighborhood, when you've worked hard to keep up your property value. The whole area from Gravois to Gustine was very nice and safe before that complex went in. That changed after the 'Spring Projects' went in. This is great news for the Bevo Neighborhood.

I basically feel the same way about this as I did when Darst-Webbe was torn down, which is good. St. Mary's will benefit from this, as will the neighborhood. It might even be a good time to buy in the area surrounding St. Mary's, now that the biggest problem properties in the neighborhood are no longer a concern.

The issue is, as I see it, that some oppose all tear downs of buildings, while others realize that some buildings just aren't worth saving.



Much of the apartment stock nation wide falls into the second category, especially those built in the late 60's and 70's. It is cheaply constructed, poor layouts, small rooms, etc. In all the apartments of that era I've lived in - I would rather tear it down and start again. I certainly wouldn't buy a condo in one no matter how much they put into renovation.



From google street view - these apartments look like the ones I'm referring to. Cheaply built, no style whatsoever, just a place to live. If management has not discouraged undesirables from living there, I can understand why the neighborhood would be glad to be rid of them. I live not far from Darst-Webb (whatever it is now), but feel like management generally does a good job of kicking the riff-raff out and keeping those who need affordable housing.

Gone Corporate wrote:Not quite what's going on. An argument can equally be made for reinvesting in the neighborhood through supportive sentiments towards the proactive neighborhood anchor, here a Catholic high school, at the cost of unwanted properties considered by many to be unoriginal and past their productive uses, with the culmination of all construction leading to an increased quality of life for the neighborhood's permanent residents, including a higher valuation of their private residences. One could go so far as to position it a neighborhood renaissance.

I agree. As someone very interested in historic preservation, I have been accused of not wanting to tear down any building, which is not entirely true. My litmus test is simple- is the replacement for what's being torn down a better and higher use of the land?



To me this is a better and higher use, because as the high school continues to grow, it will need more room to expand its campus. The apartment buildings being demolished became a liability for the school and the surrounding neighborhood. Who knows that at some point, St. Mary's would decide the liabilities outweighed the assets of staying put, and then it may have closed or moved to the county as other private high schools did years ago? With this move, St. Mary's strengthens its presence as the neighborhood anchor, and neighboring properties are stabilized.



While I believe we as a society are too quick to demolish structures built in the 1960s and 1970s, I agree with DeBaliviere about the similarities to Darst-Webbe. I think there wasn't much of a case to be made for these structures, especially since other nearby and similar structures will still remain once St. Mary's completes expansion of its athletic fields.