MSD to demo buildings

What's happening in our built environment.
quincunx wrote:
I recall some show about gangs in St. Louis. One was the horseshoe gang who wore Indiana Colts gear and lived there.


Definitely was home to a lot of gang activity. Which itself might have taken root as people who could afford to, left due to the immense flooding. I've seen and heard multiple stories about manhole covers flying off and water geysers with raw sewage flooding the street. Imagine that for 50 years.
Still waiting for the program to do something about large one story buildings with large parking lots that create a lot of storm water runoff. Or at least not subsidize them through a property tax to fund stormwater infrastructure, rather one that charges based on impervious surfaces.

StlToday - MSD, St. Louis near agreement to demolish hundreds of vacant structures for rain gardens
More than a year after announcing a proposal to supplement the city’s budget to demolish abandoned properties, the region’s sewer district and the city are finally moving forward with a program.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 80f90.html
from ^

Meanwhile, the number of vacant properties in St. Louis has been increasing since the recession. According to data from a St. Louis building survey, vacant properties hit 7,184 in 2016, up more than 2,000 since the beginning of the decade.

that's pretty brutal. It would be good to have a neighborhood map of the increase in vacant properties,,, my guess is the amount of vacant buildings has been pretty much stable in South City as a whole this decade, perhaps even decreasing, so that pretty much leaves North City seeing this depressing abandonment.
Stl Public Radio - MSD to help demolish vacant buildings
MSD expects to be able to pull down about 1,000 vacant buildings over a five to seven year period.

That’s a big help to the city, according to Building Commissioner Frank Oswald, whose office is in charge of demolition. He estimates the city has about 6,700 abandoned buildings with about 4,000 of those structurally unsound.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/msd ... -buildings
StlToday - MSD, city launch program to tear down old houses for green space
The sewer district needed more green space to absorb rainfall.

The city wanted to pare its portfolio of thousands of abandoned homes.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 33fd9.html
Can they also tear up old parking lots that cause runoff??
chaifetz10 wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:06 am
Can they also tear up old parking lots that cause runoff??
Love it. Wanna should this from the rooftops.
chaifetz10 wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:06 am
Can they also tear up old parking lots that cause runoff??
Oh no, we're subsidizing those through the stormwater property tax.
^ Eh, at least more promising than a flat-out "no".
Urban renewal porn

KSDK - St. Louis city, MSD to tear down abandoned buildings

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/st-louis ... /424941895
can somebody explain to me how other cities with many many times more roofs manage to deal with the runoff without demolishing thousands of buildings? the runoff from these structures seems like a drop in the bucket compared to runoff from roads and parking lots. such a f*cking waste.
Remember that time runoff form empty buildings int he city caused flooding of the Meramec, stranded people, wasted loads of tax dollars, and damaged the regional economy?
^ that deserves a tweet. i don't have an account tho.
As someone explained to me recently, MSD is falling short in their treatment of sewage. In St Louis, sewage and storm drains tie in together so when it rains heavily, the large volume of sewage/runoff overwhelms the treatment plants and is diverted into the river, untreated. MSD has to comply with some ?federal rule to reduce storm water run off to mitigate this. By creating more empty land and rain gardens, they will claim to reduce runoff into the combined system.

They are going after the low hanging fruit, since not many in city government will speak up against tearing down historic buildings in underused north city. Of course there are better ways of doing this. Take on vast asphalt parking lots. How about mandating green roofs.....rain barrels..... pervious sidewalks... fill in street trees......?

Very sad to loose more of our 'future great city' to narrow-minded solutions.
^ MSD complying too a consent decree with EPA and State of Missouri. MSD was threatened with lawsuit and litigation by both EPA and State of Missouri because of the untreated sewage discharges so they agreed to come up with plan to eliminate points of direct discharge during over flow periods when the system gets overwhelmed. I believe the number of direct discharge points have cut in half or more to date.
..
For all practical purposes the additional storage tunnels in proposed agreement make up and will handle the bulk of the overflow if MSD ever decides on the next tunnel contract for more storage capacity to collect and hold for treatment during dry and off peak. My civil engineer knowledge from the past is already gone but storage tunnels (Chicago dug a massive tunnel for sewer overflows) have been the preferred solution as it a give agencies/engineers a cheaper option then separating the storm & sewer system outright while at the same time giving the ability to run treatment plants with consistent flow rates over time instead of peak and valleys as well as spikes.

I believe MSD demo's and other supposed green features satisfy mandates as a policy directive.. However, as noted above the green mandates are limited to small percentage/goals under most of the decrees I have read about and seem futile or pointless unless your really want to deal with pavement and or convert to a square footage based rate that MSD did try to their credit before it got shot down by those who claimed it as a tax increase.
..
I'd also mention that the city of St. Louis isn't in the Meramec watershed. But . . . you probably knew that. I'll assume the tweet was tongue in cheek. In which case, yes, it's quite funny. ;-)