urbanSTL

The 1948 Comp Plan plates, like that shown along Gravois above, don't exactly look like Botanical Heights either.

don koester wrote:Overcrowded urban neighborhoods breed crime and decay.

Incorrect. Impoverished and underpopulated urban areas breed crime and decay.

laboubet wrote:People were living there. So is it OK for the city to tell people you're not good enough to live here?

So are you saying the city undercompensated the people who's homes were lost? I mean the owners, because if you're a renter, you know your lease will eventually end, and should be prepared to move if need be. I.E. your landlord sells the property.



If you're arguing that historical value was lost by the clearing, ok, I agree. I do not, however, feel sorry for the slumlords that were forced to sell their decaying property. Also, there is this thing called "money" and "economics" drives the use of it. Some places are not "economically" feasible to rehab, and must be replaced. Soulard, obviously, was economically feasible.

Looking at that plate again, that's actually the Third Street Expressway, or I-44/55, not Gravois. But Tucker intersects the expressway at the top of the plate (oriented to the west) to become Gravois.



Anyway, clearing a section of a neighborhood is not quite the same as an entire neighborhood, as LaSalle Park is shown in the plate image (and areas of public housing in LaSalle Park, btw, did follow this model). While I will give you that Botanical Heights did take a huge section of McRee Town, McRee Town and Tiffany were really just an extension of the Shaw neighborhood before I-44.

How many of you would have volunteered to live in McRee Town before this project began? I would venture to say that very few of us would have. The neighborhood was one of the City's worst outside of North City. Now people are lining up to live there. Personally I like a house with a little more history, but many people prefer new homes of the McBride style. They have single handedly helped to bring the spotlight to the area. Couple that with the developments in Forest Park Southeast and Shaw and we have an all-round revival on our hands.



What was the price for this revival? The clearing of a portion of a decaying, crime infested neighborhood that none of use spent two seconds thinking of five years ago. You can make all the stylistic and moral arguements you want, but I think this development is helping to make the City a better place. And in the end that's all that real matters.

I'm sorry laboulet, maybe I'm being small minded but I just can't imagine the social network that you are describing existing in that neighborhood. Maybe I'm wrong and the residents loved it there, but they sure didn't show it by taking pride in their neighborhood. Seeing what the neighborhood used to look like, I have to imagine that the residents definitely would not mind living elsewhere.



Now, however, people are lining up to buy a home there. Which situation do you favor again?

I think folks forget that the Garden District Commission didn't act in a vacuum. Neighborhood representatives from the Shaw, Southwest Garden, Tiffany AND McRee Town neighborhoods all supported the concept. Only six blocks of McRee were targeted (btw, those blocks with the most absentee ownership) with the support of McRee Town. Surrounding neighborhoods also supported the plan for fear of spreading problems. Most of those residents displaced were happy to find a better maintained yet affordable new place in a safer area, while a few even relocated within the neighborhood.



The only vocal opponents were slumlords like Roos, regional critics of eminent domain, and the pastor at St. Cronan's. While the latter two were following principles, the former are clearly hypocrites, as slumlords, that made McRee such a lost cause. Clearly, the land owners and their transient tenants were not active in the neighborhood. Thus, what remaining social capital there was in the neighborhood voted with surrounding neighborhoods in a strategy of desperation.



The lesson from McRee shouldn't be an opportunistic way for slumlords to complain about eminent domain. Rather, we should be watching to make sure no other neighborhood ever gets as desperate as McRee had become. Because its concept was an 11th-hour plan of desperation. Prior initiatives by the Garden and others had tried more organic renovation and housing assistance, but the complacent slumlords did nothing. Thus, the strategy was to target those blocks where the slumlords did own most of the properties.

southslider wrote:I think folks forget that the Garden District Commission didn't act in a vacuum. Neighborhood representatives from the Shaw, Southwest Garden, Tiffany AND McRee Town neighborhoods all supported the concept. Only six blocks of McRee were targeted (btw, those blocks with the most absentee ownership) with the support of McRee Town. Surrounding neighborhoods also supported the plan for fear of spreading problems. Most of those residents displaced were happy to find a better maintained yet affordable new place in a safer area, while a few even relocated within the neighborhood.



The only vocal opponents were slumlords like Roos, regional critics of eminent domain, and the pastor at St. Cronan's. While the latter two were following principles, the former are clearly hypocrites, as slumlords, that made McRee such a lost cause. Clearly, the land owners and their transient tenants were not active in the neighborhood. Thus, what remaining social capital there was in the neighborhood voted with surrounding neighborhoods in a strategy of desperation.



The lesson from McRee shouldn't be an opportunistic way for slumlords to complain about eminent domain. Rather, we should be watching to make sure no other neighborhood ever gets as desperate as McRee had become. Because its concept was an 11th-hour plan of desperation. Prior initiatives by the Garden and others had tried more organic renovation and housing assistance, but the complacent slumlords did nothing. Thus, the strategy was to target those blocks where the slumlords did own most of the properties.

Well put Southslider. I have to say, you're pretty informed about the situation.

Did Jim Roos create the de facto police policy of not responding to certain calls in McRee Town?

^^Nice try, eco, but you're trying to set up a false argument here.



No redevelopment process is perfect. But as southslider has already pointed out, there were plenty of opportunities for residents of McRee Town and surrounding areas to offer their input.



Some people presuming to speak for McRee Town residents argued against the redevelopment plans. Curiously, the residents themselves didn't seem to share those views.

A lot of folks' alternate recommendations are what needs to be done now in the remaining blocks of McRee Town, or even in surrounding neighborhoods of the larger Garden District.



It's too easy to be an arm-chair critic. If you want to see a neighborhood organically revive, work for that cause.



I personally worked with area residents, and they desperately wanted a drastic plan for what had become the worst pocket in all of South City. However, while working alongside those voting for drastic renewal of McRee Town, I was actively helping Southwest Garden revive, through various strategies: a neighborhood-based landlord organization, owner-occupied landlord assistance, rental hotline/website, block units/neighborhood watch, contractors' list, housing inspections, and much more.



Would-have, should-have, could-have dialogue focuses on the past. If you're worried about McRee Town, help prevent your own neighborhood or even adjacent less-off neighborhoods from ever getting as bad as McRee Town had become.

LouLou wrote:Curiously, the residents themselves didn't seem to share those views.

Not sure if that was the case. Many residents there with whom I spoke were very apprehensive about their displacement. Everyone wanted drastic change, but no one assumed that change would come from within the neighborhood. Depressed, mostly-minority neighborhoods consisting of a lot of rental units don't often get to chart their own redevelopment courses.



As for southslider's comments, I do agree that we should prevent the conditions of McRee Town from arising again -- although it is a little too late for adjacent Adams Grove. I don't agree that it's unproductive to look back at the McRee Town story and try to deduce the "should haves." Otherwise, how will we be able to prevent this from happening again?

Helping your neighbor is a very kind thing to do, but when your neighbor is a renter not an owner they aren't going to put a dime into their home. The biggest problem with areas like McRee Town is the high percentage of renters to owners. Its a fact that owners have a more vested interest in their home and neighborhood. That was never ging to change under the old cRee climate.

Go easy on me?it is my first post.



First, I think we brandy the word ?slumlord? a little loosely. I think a slumlord is a landlord who has no interest in SUSTAINING rental properties or neighborhoods. In other words collecting rents and not earmarking funds for maintenance. In this cycle, the property continues to deteriorate until it is condemned for occupancy by the city. In this process, the tenant is usually left with nothing?this did not occur when the area was condemned via eminent domain. The tenants did receive some relocation funding (adequacy of compensation is another issue).



Second, the city cannot simply take property away from owners it deems unworthy nor prevent these owners from acquiring property. I find the arguments that ?eminent domain is evil? coming from the mouths of the same people who say the city should do so very ironic. Here some actual tools available for the armchair policy analysts among us:



(1) The city will clean your lot if you won?t. The city will bill you. If you don?t pay, the city will place a lien on your property.



(2) The city will board your ground floor if you leave it open. The city will bill you. If you don?t pay, the city will place a lien on you property.



(3) If you don?t abide by the property maintenance code, the city will send you to court and fine you. If you don?t show up, the city will activate a warrant for your arrest. If arrested, you will face a judge and pay a fine.



(4) If you don?t pay your property taxes for three years the city will sell your property to the highest bidder, and take only what it is owed. If no one bids, the property is turned over to LRA.



(5) If your property is kept vacant, you will be assessed a $200 fee per year.



(6) If illegal activity is reoccurring at an address, the city may board up the building for up to one year.



(7) The city will demolish a building if it is deemed an public safety hazard. You will be billed.



Please note that only one of these tools actually results in the transfer of property from one owner to another. For the record, I dislike the use of eminent domain for economic development in general.

stlpcsolutions wrote:I think a big issue is preventing slumlords from purchasing properties

Thank you for making this point. This is key to preventing instability in an area. Currently, a very deep-pocketed absentee owner is buying up properties on the near northside, including in Old North. We are working as hard as we can to keep them from buying more properties and also to get them to communicate with the neighborhoods in which they are buying. Organized neighbors have cancelled one of their contracts on three buildings and have comevery close to uncovering their identity. We are taking care of the matter before it gets out of hand.

I can see the many sides to argument about what should have been saved and what should not have been saved. As a city resident for the past eight years of my life, I have already owned three homes. My first was a gut-rehab in Tower Grove and the other two since have been new construction. I also grew up in the county, so I've can see things from a lot of different perspectives.



I take issue with the comments that claim that McBride didn't try to offer anything similar to what was already there. It may not be easy to see from the outside, but the development has two distinct styles of home.



One series (The City Series) is DEFINITELY city-style in content and layout. They are close together, narrow at the front, but go deep on the lot with detached garages at the back. Those home are packed with lots of standard features that nbody else can touch in the city for their price point. Those features include 10' tall ceilings, standard hardwoods on the first floor, oak staircases, and brick all the way around the house (yes, full brick ... come take a closer look). This style has sold-out in each phase, but at a slower pace.



The other series (Olde Towne Series) has a more suburban flare in floorplan, but still have a conservative exterior design that differs from McBride's West County offerings. This series has hardy-plank siding, which is a few steps up from standard vinyl siding because it's a masonry product which looks like wood. This series has been an easier sell for McBride because it offers a contemporary feel on the inside that is tempting people to give up their West County homes and move back to the city.



Both series of homes are offered at an extremely competitive price point. Take a hop over to Gas Light Square or Vatterott's new development at West End Estates and you'll see what higher prices do to the speed of development. The average family just can't afford to spend that much on a home and it shows with how slowly they are selling. This development is the best alternative because it's having a tremendous impact in a short amount of time. The homes are selling fast because they are a good value. You can't argue with the success so far.



Bicker all you want about what's the right thing to do, but the worst spots of McRee Town (3900 and 4000 blocks of Folsom, Blaine, McRee, and Lafayette) were in a frightful state for years and they presented a haven for drug deals as well as an eye-sore from the highway. When I lived in Tower Grove, and The Gate District after that, I wouldn't have even driven through the area after dark for fear of being shot. Now it's safe enough that I feel comfortable walking my dogs at night in Botanical Heights. I think that's a pretty amazing turnaround for the short amount of time that the development has been going on.



Furthermore, there seems to be a LOT of misconception about what's going to happen beyond the 4000 blocks that are currently under construction. I've been to quite a few meetings and I've heard the plans and it's been well-stated that the intent is to keep what is architecturally significant and fill in between with new homes where the existing homes are too fare gone. The City Series homes that McBride has already designed will blend in much better than designs I've seen in the past from builders such as Pyramid. It could be worse, trust me on that. It seems like a very reasonable plan to me.



I understand that people love older architecture, as do I, but gut-rehabbing is expensive and would have been necessary on the vast majority of the homes that were knocked down. Even after a rehab, you have lots of ongoing maintenance. Having experienced both, I see the value of new construction even if some of the charm is lost in the process.



You can't have everything, and a bombed-out shell of a neighborhood is not an asset for the city. Botanical Heights, and the new neighbors who are swarming in, are a definite asset. I've met most of my neighbors and they are good people who wanted a good value in the city. Families with kids and couples who are ready to retire are all moving back to the city and it's a very diverse group too.



I may be biased, but I'm reasonably impressed.