urbanSTL

Thanks for posting the article.



I can't imagine a recall effort being anything but futile.



Something that would be doable would be to pick up trash and garbage, paint, plant flowers, bring property up to code, repair broken windows, buy out slumlords, etc...



Maybe an effort to save homes would have much more solid footing if the area appeared viable and beautiful and the residents were a cohesive unit.

Matt wrote:Thanks for posting the article.



I can't imagine a recall effort being anything but futile.



Something that would be doable would be to pick up trash and garbage, paint, plant flowers, bring property up to code, repair broken windows, buy out slumlords, etc...



Maybe an effort to save homes would have much more solid footing if the area appeared viable and beautiful and the residents were a cohesive unit.

If Jim Roos owns properties in that area, that could be asking a lot.



I totally agrew with you though.

What strange bedfellows- ppty owners and Jim Roos. I'd be curious to hear what any neighbor of a Roos property thinks about his ppty upkeep and tenants. Can't his ppty be ED'd and let the good homeowners in BH stay?



As for a recall, I don't see much support. Phyllis enjoys tremendous support in the 7th ward.

Another effective way to combat needless destruction of occupied historic housing is for people who claim to care about these issues to do something more than b**** about it. The residents are a cohesive unit. There was a large meeting last week (mentioned in the article). Did you go? I and a few other people from the forum did as well. I agree, the recall effort may be futile, but I don't think the comment about cleaning up the homes is accurate or fair. By the way, the homes that are currently vacant....Who in their right mind would purchase them or move into them with the threat of eminent domain hanging over their head?? The only person that is going to "buy out 'slumlords'" at this point is Chris Goodson and/or LCRA. Then......they're going to knock down the properties. I personally know that the few code violations are being vigorously pursued at the moment, but that is in the hands of the city, and until the city decides to prosecute code violations with some semblance of diligence, it is unfair to blame Bohemian Hill residents for the actions of a few negectful absentee property owners. I don't blame anyone for not getting involved and I am not trying to appear self important, but I strongly disagree with your characterization of the area as not appearing viable. I would encourage you to take a close look at the block of homes and imagine them totally occupied, re-habilitated, and tastefully integrated into a walkable retail center. I think that if spared the wrecking ball, they could be compose a very desirable block in the near future.

Are your comments directed at me?



I don't want the bldgs knocked down. The selective ED was kind of a joke. I want them rehabbed right.



I am generally not sympathetic to the absentee land owners who sit on ppty and won't sell to willing developers. In fact, I look out my kitchen window and see a row of at least 3 of them that are ripe for rehab in prime area, but owned by a woman who won't sell, rent, or rehab them.



I wish your friends the best. I've written to Phyllis, but no, I haven't attended a meeting and don't plan to.

You have to wonder what affect Jim Roos has had on lack of development in the area. Perhaps if he had not been a property owner more of the housing would have already been renovated making the neighborhood less apt to be bulldozed. During the height of the Loughborough Commons debate, Roos showed up at a Carondelet community meeting along with some members of Larry Rices gang to drum up support of his eminent domain coalition without much success. Their argument was that the city was driving out the poor and he (Roos) was offing them affordable housing. Perhaps he has good motives but I view him as more of a Fagan character.

No mom, not directed at you.

I missed the meeting and I live down the street - well within five blocks. So direct your comments at me - I feel guilty about missing it already.



and by the way - why does everyone seem to think that a recall effort would be futile? Seems like eminent domain abuse is a hot topic nowadays

Under most circumstances, I'd agree. The difference I see here is that the area has been just about exactly as it is now for the past 15-20 years. There were efforts by Mary One Johnson to jump start the real estate market around 2000. Apparently, they didn't work.



How many more years are to pass before these blocks start performing? I drive through there at least twice a week and it IS largely blight. It's been a chore to even get people to cut grass/weeds and pick up debris.

IMHO, the condition of the property facing 12th negatively affects the housing on the east side of 12th.



My opinion is that the condition of real estate and its value and the state of affairs in any neighborhood is the first responsibility of a neighborhood association and its membership. This is the only model that appears to work in any central city neighborhood in the nation. Soulard and Lafayette Square both base their success on real estate marketing by a neighborhood association.



Maybe this is a better way to look at it:

1. 2007 - let's say that all efforts cease by Gilded Age or the city to buy-out and redevelop (possibly using eminent domain) the area.

2. 2008 - what will property owners have done to renovate homes, improve real estate values, beautify the area, etc...?

3. 2009 - if nothing has been done - benchmarks haven't been met - so Gilded Age is given redevelopment rights.

What can the existing property owners do in 2-3 years to turn things around?



If they came up with a plan, I'd bet Ald. Young would support it. Phase II probably wouldn't start until about 2010 anyway.

Turn the area around? Three entirely new homes, multiple rehabs, and the area isn't on the upswing already? It was the blocks WEST of 13th that were struggling, but that's all been clear-cut now for Phase-I or "Georgian Square." But Phase-II covers these healthy blocks between South Tucker and 13th. Infill is the answer for these blocks. No more clear-cutting should be accepted in Bohemian Hill.



And the more attractive Phase-I can be, the more improved these remaining intact blocks will become as well. For example, Tiffany was one of the fastest appreciating neighborhoods in the City. There is little doubt that Botanical Heights made neighboring Tiffany more attractive. An urban development by Gilded Age here would make the remaining Bohemian Hill attractive as well, but homeowners (and yes, these remaining blocks are increasingly owner-occupied) aren't going to want to look at the back of a Southtown Center-type of development.

(honest question): when was the last rehab in these blocks? Is there a rehab(s) going on now? When was the last new home built here?



The ironic thing about Tiffany is that Botanical Heights is a horrible suburban development. But, as you say, it has made Tiffany more desirable - does this mean that more developments like this will occur?



This is definitely true:

And the more attractive Phase-I can be, the more improved these remaining intact blocks will become as well.

If the Guilded Age development turns it back to his group of houses, I think it's a death sentence. It it opens up, THEN it may become an attractive place for more homes/rehabs.

Once again, there is only a brand new neighborhood association because the neighborhood was so isolated, small, and ostracized from both Soulard and Lafayette Square. Does anyone think that area is really blighted? I guess since blight isn't defined you might, but just because some of the buildings are not occupied and there is occasionally trash on the street doesn't mean these buildings are a menace and are dragging down the area. It also doesn't mean that the home owners who live there should be forced out to make room for more affluent people who can afford the phase II condos. Isn't the whole idea of urban renewal to encourage people to move into questionable areas and make them better? If these residents are forced to move and the houses demolished, Bohemian Hill will become a ***** poster child of an argument against taking a chance on moving into an "up and coming" area. You move in, you fix up the place, some of your neighbors are good, some not so good, but you see major potential for appreciation.......then, a crooked alderman and a developer with deep pockets decide they are going to bulldoze your home so that THEY can take advantage of YOUR valuable real estate. The proof that this land is prime can be found in the fact that Gilded Age want's it so badly. Among all the other reasons this is criminal is the fact that Phase II has residential. What this says, plain and simple, is that the people who live on Bohemian Hill cannot live there, and that somebody else can. bullsh*t.

southslider wrote: An urban development by Gilded Age here would make the remaining Bohemian Hill attractive as well...

True, but what tools does the city have at its disposal to force G.A. into an urban development?

southslider wrote: Infill is the answer for these blocks. No more clear-cutting should be accepted in Bohemian Hill.

I think we should be willing to accept the clearing of these blocks if the developer is willing to accept higher quality urban design guidelines. In the absence of any stricter planning/design regulations in the city, it may be the only tool we have. If the property owners have truly been in the neighborhood for awhile and invested in their properties, they'll still make a profit when they're bought out by the city. Perhaps part of the deal can be for G.A. to provide current renters in the neighborhood a unit that they can afford in the new development.

Grover wrote:(honest question): when was the last rehab in these blocks? Is there a rehab(s) going on now? When was the last new home built here?

I drove through this area last night and didn't see anything.



IMHO this could just be a play to get more money. I've seen it before.



I knew someone who lived in Maplewood and got bought out for the WalMart. He was one of the squeekiest wheels against the it and it paid off great. They paid him close to $210,000 for a house he paid close to $72,000 (he claims). They originally offered $160,000 and playing hardball netted him $50,000 more.

jefferson wrote:

we should be willing to accept the clearing of these blocks if the developer is willing to accept higher quality urban design guidelines

Sorry, I don't see how much more urban you can get than the virtually intact blocks that are already there between Tucker and 13th. In fact, the three newer homes made the block more intact. Where the "Phase-II" (what's left of Bohemian Hill) area does have missing teeth is along Lafayette, but here would be great for infill development of storefonts with condos/apartments above, especially if an adjoining development in Phase-I's area generated the right foot traffic.



If you're thinking of clear-cutting more for higher density, Phase-I is where you can now build taller. That site is directly across from the taller City Hospital (or Georgian). Meanwhile, "Phase-II" sits across from shorter King Louis Square. Likewise, behind or north of City Hospital along Park Avenue sits underutilized property where you could also build something dense. In other words, there are multiple sites outside of what's left of Bohemian Hill's virtually intact blocks, including the now clear-cut Phase-I footprint, where you can think about building denser, before ever needing to also demolish this urban block of rehabbed homes and context-sensitive infill (3 newer homes) east of 13th Street.

I don't see how much more urban you can get than the virtually intact blocks that are already there between Tucker and 13th.

http://www.google.com/maps?q=Saint+Loui ... 8&t=h&om=1



Can anyone tell me what has changed east of 13th since this satellite photo was taken? It looks like the land along Lafayette is open and south of Soulard looks like a couple businesses, maybe?

Okay, so north of Soulard Street is more intact than south. I already admitted to open land on Lafayete. But like the open areas south of Soulard, I also said build infill in these remaining holes, which still cover less land than the buildings do on each block east of 13th Street. But I also find it ridiculous that fewer buildings were cleared on the four blocks under Phase-I than the single northeastern block (north of Soulard Street) eyed as part of Phase-II has in number of buildings. Other than its infill potential along Lafayette, judging from this linked map from Built St. Louis or Grover's linked aerial, that at least this one block bounded by Tucker, Lafayette, Soulard and 13th Streets is fairly intact.



So again, I admit south of Soulard Street is not as intact, but its holes still are relatively minor. I think the I-44/55 off-ramp to Gravois in the aerial likely makes the vacant land seem larger. But also think about it this way. Just as you would expect those in residences along 13th not wanting to look at the backside of a retail strip center, neither would the residents along Soulard Street. Thus, it would be best if the site plan called for fronting a residential component of Phase-I along 13th, as well as building infill residential along Soulard Street and mixed use infill along Lafayette as part of Phase-II.

I'm not making my point clearly, which is, urban pioneers usually don't go it alone. The glue that makes it all work is the association between neighbors.



If someone hasn't already learned it the hard way, here's a rule of thumb: NEVER buy a house without also buying the neighborhood. If you wouldn't buy the neighbors or neighborhood, don't buy the house.



I think the most recent rehab was of a building on the south corner of 13th at Soulard. They didn't do it to historic preservation standards so the value of the property is probably far less than desired.



The condos on Soulard street were done just before by Mary One. The sales figures appear to have been around the mid $150s.

Matt wrote:
If someone hasn't already learned it the hard way, here's a rule of thumb: NEVER buy a house without also buying the neighborhood. If you wouldn't buy the neighbors or neighborhood, don't buy the house.

If everyone did that, then "bad" neighborhoods would never get turned around and improved.

^ I think the point is to be an educated buyer. For some it's worth the risk of buying in a "bad" neighborhood. Buyers should just know that buying a home anywhere is a risk and nothing is guaranteed. Sometimes homeowners don't do enough research before buying, sometimes they don't do enough to help a neighborhood once the do, and sometimes they're just unlucky.

I think of that rule of thumb differently. I think "when you buy the house, you buy the neighborhood" means that you take on the responsibility of working to make the neighborhood into the kind of place that you want to live. I don't think it means that you should only buy a house where you have ideal neighbors at all. A critical part of "buying the neighborhood" is standing up to threats including crime....................and bulldozers. Blame the victims here all you want, but if you met these folks face to face, I think it would be a lot harder to dismiss their plight.

^



Agree 100%. Not only that, but if it was YOUR home that was going to be taken away, I don't think rationalizations such as it's because you bought in the wrong neighborhood would make much sense.

well, I agree that an urban Phase-I along with infill between 13th and Tucker would be the ideal situation. I'm just wondering, other than asking nicely, what leverage we have to get the developer to build this way under the current planning/zoning regime in the city? We could tell them to take a hike if they don't build this way. But what if they say "ok see ya"? How long then do we wait for then for the regulations to change or for a developer willing to meet our standards? 5yrs.? 10, 20?



Alternatively, we could ask them to build an urban Phase-I and offer them the carrot of the blocks between 13th and Tucker to do so. We could dictate the design guidelines (more or less) for Phases I & II in exchange for these blocks, which even their defenders will concede are not intact (if we're looking at the same image the "best" block bounded by Tucker, Lafayette, Soulard and 13th looks to be about 50-60% intact.) We could also require them to provide affordable units to the current renters on these blocks. As I see it, we wouldn't be sacrificing a neighborhood for the development, we'd be trading the tattered remains of a neighborhood for a high-quality urban development that provides a much needed link between Soulard and Lafayette Sq.



Again if we can confine G.A. to the phase-I area and get them to build urban, then get some infill between 13th and Tucker, that would be great. I'm just saying we should be prepared to deal. Taking the hard line preservationist approach while the Phase-I land sits vacant or gets the strip-mall treatment doesn't represent progress for this area.

I recognize the validity of what you're saying, but I do not agree about the extent to which that block is intact. You should drive it, then re-consider. I can certainly see the logic in dealing in the manner you suggest. The problem is that homeowners/preservationists/urbanists, whomever is involved, hold no cards. The block has been blighted by Phyllis Young which means we can't use it as a bargaining chip. She has already promised it to Gilded Age and is apparently prepared to use Eminent Domain to evict the owners. The first order of business is to get her to rescind her blight designation (which is completely ridiculous). Once she does that, THEN the homeowners/preservation/good urban planning communities would have some bargaining power. In this situation, all the little guy has is public outcry. The outcry needs to be focused on Young to force her to rescind the blight so that there is at least a semblance of a balance of power. Then negotiation can begin. As is, they are just steam rolling ahead because they know that realistically, nobody can touch their plans.