Agree and disagree. I agree with returning some areas to forest and prairie (it does sound like this program includes plantings and beautification to limit maintenance work for the neighbors). But I don't agree with removing streets and sidewalks. Let's say hypothetically something changes in the future and a developer wants to take a shot on the North Side. Having the original grid in place is going to at least make it more likely we'll get an urban development that fits into the city somewhat. Where if it was open grass land, what would really be there to stop a developer from just planting a cheap and easy suburban style subdivision in there?chaifetz10 wrote: Demolish those that are completely gone so that resources can be targeted into the blocks that have a fighting chance of being salvaged. And then turn the empty blocks back into prairie or forest or park land (removing the roads and sidewalks) to cut down on maintenance and repair costs. This may not be a popular opinion on this site, but perhaps a clean slate would benefit the most troubled areas.
You're correct. It would take serious money to do what is right but then its already taking serious money to demolish.. Imagine the impact if these millions were going into preserving legacy neighborhoods rather than erasing them.dylank wrote: Nobody wants to lose the building stock, but these aren't little rehabs. Some of the buildings here have been vacant for twenty to thirty years. This isn't similar to Tower Grove or Fox Park where a family can tackle, "flip" and then reclaim in a year or so.
These are full-time commitment and people don't always want to take the risk. Unless you are extremely passionate about the area, and want to make a home here--the odds aren't in your favor.
There's a family in Old North who has spent 18 years on a house. This is the wall-down, roof-collapse that we see everyday in the Northside.
Think about how much demand there was for most central and south neighborhoods even 30 years ago.chaifetz10 wrote: Right, but is there enough demand for these legacy neighborhoods to actually drive residency? We're not talking about investing $100,000 into each house and then selling it to someone for $105,000 - some of these need complete gut jobs and who would be able to pay the costs of moving in? And if those people were out there wouldn't they already be buying these up from LRA?
There's a gap between what we all WANT to happen versus what the market in St. Louis will support.
)Legitimate question here - I'm not intending to argue against your position: How does mothballing protect against those who would break in for shelter or something more nefarious, or those who would strip the building for resalable scrap?imran wrote:Think about how much demand there was for most central and south neighborhoods even 30 years ago.chaifetz10 wrote: Right, but is there enough demand for these legacy neighborhoods to actually drive residency? We're not talking about investing $100,000 into each house and then selling it to someone for $105,000 - some of these need complete gut jobs and who would be able to pay the costs of moving in? And if those people were out there wouldn't they already be buying these up from LRA?
There's a gap between what we all WANT to happen versus what the market in St. Louis will support.
St Louis market has changed a lot already and will likely change more.
I want the city to be mindful, intentional and recognize the true costs of demolition
Rather than the goal being now or never (renovate or demolish), we should be planning for a more distant future.
A fraction of the demo costs can board & stabilize a building and make it water-tight. (I believe Ald Spencer did that with a building in her ward that was slated for demo)
It would preserve a reuse opportunity for decades rather than create the maintenance and social liability of another vacant lot.
(can you tell I'm passionate about this?
Guess it depends on how well you secure a building. Boarding up accessible openings is all it usually takes.rbb wrote:Legitimate question here - I'm not intending to argue against your position: How does mothballing protect against those who would break in for shelter or something more nefarious, or those who would strip the building for resalable scrap?imran wrote:Think about how much demand there was for most central and south neighborhoods even 30 years ago.chaifetz10 wrote: Right, but is there enough demand for these legacy neighborhoods to actually drive residency? We're not talking about investing $100,000 into each house and then selling it to someone for $105,000 - some of these need complete gut jobs and who would be able to pay the costs of moving in? And if those people were out there wouldn't they already be buying these up from LRA?
There's a gap between what we all WANT to happen versus what the market in St. Louis will support.
St Louis market has changed a lot already and will likely change more.
I want the city to be mindful, intentional and recognize the true costs of demolition
Rather than the goal being now or never (renovate or demolish), we should be planning for a more distant future.
A fraction of the demo costs can board & stabilize a building and make it water-tight. (I believe Ald Spencer did that with a building in her ward that was slated for demo)
It would preserve a reuse opportunity for decades rather than create the maintenance and social liability of another vacant lot.
(can you tell I'm passionate about this?
-RBB
