urbanSTL

This was a handsome, prominent, solid building which was built before the Civil War. Such a damn shame.

Righteous indignation

Is NN an alderperson?

There's a thought!

for the love of god, give it a rest.

More righteous indignation.

"Righteous indignation" - noun:

"retribution, retributive justice; anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way; anger without guilt"

The reason I call the reaction to this loss "righteous indignation" is because of the last part of the above definition: anger without guilt.

We are in the situation we are in here in St. Louis because of us. Not because of aldermen. Not because of a lack of a preservation plan. It is because of us. We have let things get this way. We have let our school system become inequitable. We have allowed institutionalized racism become a way of life. We have let economic injustice flow.

And so when these sorts of things happen - this time a high profile demolition in a distressed community - there's outrage. But the thousands and thousands of little cuts on our body that have brought us to this point go with little notice.

So we get outraged and unify in a display of righteous indignation - anger without guilt. The problem though is that this is all a reflection on us. Accept things the way they are or take responsibility to be the change. St. Bridget has a lesson here.

Guilt matters.

But it is a lot easier to blame the alderperson than ourselves.

Give that man a cigar!

The 5th Ward is not exactly a bastion of historic fabric. There are pockets. Old North, St. Louis Place, yes.

Ward wide? Hardly.

I must have missed the post where someone blamed the alderman?

I must have missed the post where someone blamed the alderman?

There have been comments made on social media suggesting that no one alderman should have so much control over such matters. The only problem with that view is that it flies in the face of the longstanding St. Louis tradition of Aldermanic Courtesy.

(Don't like aldermanic courtesy? Work to change it.)

There have been many comments made in this thread about the aldeman's unwillingness to make the 5th ward a preservation review district, and because of this, there's no way to curb demolition.

So, it's the alderman's fault.

Much of one's personal reaction is to this situation depends on how far back your memory goes.

People with short memories are more likely to blame the alderman.

The only problem with that view is that it flies in the face of the longstanding St. Louis tradition of Aldermanic Courtesy.

(Don't like aldermanic courtesy? Work to change it.)

Just rolling along with the status quo. No desire to bring new ideas. Not my fault.

We are in the situation we are in here in St. Louis because of us. Not because of aldermen. Not because of a lack of a preservation plan.

Weeeell, um. Actually this demo did happen bc there wasn't a preservation plan.

Get this person out of office.

Weeeell, um. Actually this demo did happen bc there wasn't a preservation plan.

Get this person out of office.

How do you explain the situations in Hyde Park (National Register District), and the Ville, local historic district.

Demolitions and decaying building litter the landscape.

It takes more than a plan folks. Way more.

Hyde Park's alderman is not exactly the picture of youthful ambition and concern for architecture. Talk to him for five minutes and you'll get that feeling you might have for your own grandpa when he's lost or needs help.

If you folks think aldermen are going to be saviours of historic assets, you will be sorely disappointed.

Good aldermen have good people behind them. Good, serious, dedicated residents. Ask a good aldermen what makes them effective.

They'll tell you: Committed people serving the public interest in their wards, whether residents, developers, etc.

You guys place way too much emphasis on the aldermen.

So NN is mad at us because we here on the forum didn't chain ourselves to the building or do something else extreme to stop the demolition?

And yeah, sort of. What saved Lafayette Square from demolition were the hardscrabble people of the 1970s who fought the in-the-trenches efforts to save buildings, one at a time.

I hear Millenials are "commitment shy". They're not "joiners". Anyone care to respond re. the validity of that observation?

I hear native Saint Louisans are completely incompetent and/or destructive in nearly all matters of civic engagement.

That sounds pretty accurate ifyou ask me, and explains a lot about the shape this region is in.

So this was the 5th oldest Catholic Church in the city...what's the cut off for making it Ok to demo? 8th 17t? I am all for preserving what we have but not at an expense of moving forward and progress. The fact that this was the first Irish church in the city literally means nothing to me.

I have multiple generations of family that was baptized, confirmed etc here. But I guess that's just a bunch of stupid crap to you. Glad you get your new building.

What happened? Sounds like it was a thriving parish. Where'd everybody go? And when? And why? Looks like it was the parishioners who really decided the fate of the church. They voted with their feet to go elsewhere.

by the way, De La Salle used a couple hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer dollars to raze a building surrounded by nothing but cheap vacant land. got another self-righteous lecture in defense of that one, NN?

dweebe wrote:

dbInSouthCity wrote:So this was the 5th oldest Catholic Church in the city...what's the cut off for making it Ok to demo? 8th 17t? I am all for preserving what we have but not at an expense of moving forward and progress. The fact that this was the first Irish church in the city literally means nothing to me.

I have multiple generations of family that was baptized, confirmed etc here. But I guess that's just a bunch of stupid crap to you. Glad you get your new building.

And than they bailed on the area? But let's not allow progress just so they can visit once a year or 2 to relive memories. Pictures do the job just as well without stopping progress.

What progress?

^ expansion of a school that will hopefully end the cycle of poverty for a lot of the students?

^ expansion of a school that will hopefully end the cycle of poverty for a lot of the students?

...drops the microphone...

by the way, De La Salle used a couple hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer dollars to raze a building surrounded by nothing but cheap vacant land. got another self-righteous lecture in defense of that one, NN?

I have no idea the point you're trying to make.

There was something funny though on social media today.

Apparently now Tamika Hubbard is vowing to do historic preservation review. Isn't it always like that?

So let's just grant that we as a region collectively failed this church and in a round about way bear some responsibility for its demise by not pursuing protection for it sooner and for "voting with our feet" etc.

That does not change the fact that a demolition permit was requested and issued without even gauging public input. The alder person of the Ward surely knew of demo plans Months in advance but instead of assessing the general opinion of the city proper, or even their own ward the waited till the last minute to submit the demo permit, approved it, and started demo in like a week. The time between under threat, and demolished was not anywhere close to enough time to mount a push to stop it. That was almost certainly by design. To fein shock is just disgusting. It's very likely they didn't foresee the scale of the backlash but they definitely knew there would be disagreement.

To argue that people on this site haven't been supporting city wide preservation review is absurd. Clearly they have.

To say that we should have seen this coming is equally absurd. The church was externally well kept, and was owned by an institution that seemed like they would have a plausible reason to reuse it. Prior to demolition request anyone who looked at the ownership, probably breathed a sigh of relief and moved on to some more imminent threat. What indication was there that this was coming.

Agree with pretty much all of the above except the part that the alderwoman was part of a conspiracy to conceal the plans for the demolition. Aldermen aren't the ones who submit for demolition permits; property owners/developers are. I think a lot of people give way too much credit to aldermen for being behind the scenes on all things. I think the opposite is more true. They are just like the rest of us and often have a hard time getting accurate information, especially when it comes to real estate matters. It's very possible the school/church folks kept their plans quiet from all but their inner circle.

Memories are fleeting things, but if I recall correctly, De La Salle's plans to move from the Ville were made pretty recently. And hasn't St. Bridget's been for sale for quite some time? I seem to recall a Hilliker sign on that building for over a year. It seems highly plausible to me that if indeed DLS was/is planning/making a move from the Ville to JVL, they'd see it as a small win for North City, keeping their operation on the north side. They were probably a lot more focused on that goal and their construction schedule for opening the new school than the potential change in use/demo of a vacant church for sale on the open market.

We all see things differently; we have different priorities. These sensibilities are shaped by our experiences. And the experiences of people in North St. Louis are a lot different than the experiences of people from most other areas of the region. Bringing quality education to the low income children of the community is a challenge/goal/priority for people in North City much more than it is for people in almost all other parts of St. Louis.

For anyone needing a larger school building here are some that are available.

http://www.drpartnersllc.com/?page_id=11

Doesn't the alderman have to approve the requests?

No. It's a simple process with the Building Division, presuming no preservation review.