urbanSTL

I went by these buildings yesterday to see how they are. Really nice. 










Also, the ice cream/candy shop thing had this sign up on a light pole nearby. I guess it's getting ready to open..


Unfortunately, looks like this old house at 2751 Chippewa is going to be demolished by the City.

^ why? is the back missing or something? it looks to be in reasonable condition. and i love how the sign suggests that we should be excited about the demolition. absolutely f*cking stupid.

Those roses (?) are a nice touch; I've never seen that before. 

I think on Twitter someone said that the back is in pretty bad condition.

At that rate I don't get how the public facing home at California and I-44/Lafayette hasn't been demolished.  The thing is a blatant eyesore.

Shame this won't be rehabbed and it'll be a vacant eyesore on that newly revamped corner.  I feel like after all of the hurdles this project has had to go through, someone would be able to shore up money for this.  Is nomination for NS designation too late?

Bummer. Check out the Geo page for this house. Condemnation tab shows rear photos (kinda) and an email where alderperson asks for demo.

https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/citydata/newdesign/condemn.cfm?handle=11640000350&Parcel9=164000350

It's not owned by the LRA, so can't get Prop NS resources.

Is there an answer for the problem of an owner that won't let go, can never afford the growing cost of rehab, that thinks they're sitting on a lottery ticket? 

Got you.  I only assumed it was LRA owned because it was in poor shape, then again we're in St. Louis.

It's really frustrating.  N/S got us half way there.  Land tax auctions get us another step.  We really need a way to get rid of squatters.

johnnyqnola wrote: ↑

Sep 25, 2020

Bummer. Check out the Geo page for this house. Condemnation tab shows rear photos (kinda) and an email where alderperson asks for demo.

https://dynamic.stlouis-mo.gov/citydata/newdesign/condemn.cfm?handle=11640000350&Parcel9=164000350

Interesting e-mail exchange... I really don't know what to make of it, especially with the private ownership involved.  I do wonder tho who pays for demo in situations where the city does it on private ownership... perhaps they bill the owner and then take the property when it's not paid.  it's a lot of money whoever pays for it, which ideally would be used for board-up/stabiiization.

The demo request emails are from over a year ago, so my assumption is they tried to get the current owner to stabilize (or sell?) it and still nothing happened. If it's become even more structurally compromised that it is endangering buildings next door, then I get why they kinda have to proceed with the demo now.

^ that's a lot of assumption.

edit... that sounded kind of snarky there... so just to elaborate; I don't see any indication by the alderperson of trying to get a preservation resolution on the situation from that exchange and it appears politics at least at some level is involved here.  The other weird thing is it appears a $20k permit for a masonry job for the rear was completed in June but that may be just smoke.  I'll try to get over there and check the back, but it seems like neighborhood folks are saying the back isn't in good shape but as to it rising to the level of emergency demo is raising some eyebrows, especially relative to what's being left standing elsewhere in this city.  

At the end of the day, maybe this truly is a public danger and all options have been exhausted but I do think a higher level of scrutiny on CRO and demo practices is very much warranted just in general.

It's just staggering to me when you see walls being rebuild on Russell, and then you have a negligent owner who won't even sell the property and instead would rather see it rot while buildings are being gutted next door.

In a city where urban fabric that will never be replaced in quality is crumbling away, this needs to be a priority.  To investigate legal means by which to reacquire these buildings and at least put them in the LRA ownership to hopefully give them another chance.  Had NS funds been possible for this, it would be a no-brainer.  So would so many investor-owned properties that crumble around south city.  The city has to recognize the property tax and value that adds by saving some of these, right? It brings up the whole block.  Just, not fair.  And it's an epidemic in the city.

Have they started to chew on 2751?

I drove by tonight to check out the rear wall. It had been collapsed for as long as I can remember, but it was indeed rebuilt over the summer. Hopefully demolition ends up being no more than a threat to get the owner to do more.

Should we inquire about it to Cara? Does it make more sense for someone in Cara's ward to contact her?

If that building stays it will be worth 300k+ in <10 years

^^Yes certainly. We're hoping this is about getting the owner to do something, but we could be quite incorrect.

Cara replied to me, seems like it's safe:

Thanks for reaching out John. I discussed this briefly with our Building Commissioner. While there was an application for demolition, it was not approved. There are no plans right not to demolish.