MSD to demo buildings

What's happening in our built environment.
Looks like the demo monster has found a new pot of money.

Stltoday - MSD proposes to spend $13.5 million to demolish vacant St. Louis structures

With nearly 7,000 vacant buildings in St. Louis, the $1 million the city spends annually on demolitions does little more than chip away at decades of white flight and neglect.

It can afford to knock down about 200 or so buildings each year in a long, slow effort to pare its housing stock more befitting a city of 320,000 people, rather than the 850,000 of 65 years ago. A bond issue that included more money for demolitions failed in August, and the recession erased years of progress.


“We’ve got those initial conversations scheduled,” Oswald said. “It’s a great thing. We’re just really appreciative and thrilled with it.”


http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/ar ... 2f5a0.html
quincunx wrote:
Looks like the demo monster has found a new pot of money.

Stltoday - MSD proposes to spend $13.5 million to demolish vacant St. Louis structures

With nearly 7,000 vacant buildings in St. Louis, the $1 million the city spends annually on demolitions does little more than chip away at decades of white flight and neglect.

It can afford to knock down about 200 or so buildings each year in a long, slow effort to pare its housing stock more befitting a city of 320,000 people, rather than the 850,000 of 65 years ago. A bond issue that included more money for demolitions failed in August, and the recession erased years of progress.


http://m.stltoday.com/business/local/ar ... 2f5a0.html

From the report this morning on KSDK, it appears they will be including rain gardens and other landscaping in the footprint of these buildings. I suppose this is better than just flat out demolition. They also mentioned needing EPA approval. I know this is probably looking 20-30 years down the road, but will they need EPA approval to redevelop those sites should they become "in demand"?
They're promoting the environmental benefits as justification while this is yet another albeit smaller encouragement to spread out which is a far bigger environmental disaster.
I think this can be a solid project with a targeted demolition plan. I'd like to see it be a part of an overall strategic plan for LRA properties.
Agreed. This seems to be another thinly veiled effort by Slay & Co. to spread the cost of demolition, and get rid of what they deem to be an eyesore, rather than attracting developers to rehab the buildings and area. Oy.
It's a difficult issue... many of these properties are a clear neighborhood nuisance and make it difficult to attract neighborhood investment and drive people out. The key will be to figure out creative ways to get the better properties back into productive re-use and reserve demo for the truly deleterious ones.
roger wyoming II wrote:
It's a difficult issue... many of these properties are a clear neighborhood nuisance and make it difficult to attract neighborhood investment and drive people out. The key will be to figure out creative ways to get the better properties back into productive re-use and reserve demo for the truly deleterious ones.

Good point. Based on STL history, especially re: North STL demo, I'm nervous about how targeted they will be. I remain hopeful, but I would like it more if they form and release a full-fledged plan before firing up the bulldozers.
I see runoff from north city homes has closed I-70 in St. Charles County!
Densely built double story historic buildings that hold tremendous potential are not what is causing run off. How about miles of ever expanding highway lanes and gigantic parking lots? How about sprawling ranch houses with driveways? Abandoned strip malls and gas stations?

Regardless of how these abandoned properties are perceived, this argument for demolition is BS.
I can agree with this. If they're so worried about run off, why not target the vast empty parking lots instead? Those have to be 100x worse than some old homes.
Car upset with the road closures caused by runoff from vacant buildings, demos building at MLK and Taylor.

http://fox2now.com/2016/01/03/north-st- ... ck-by-car/
quincunx wrote:
Car upset with the road closures caused by runoff from vacant buildings, demos building at MLK and Taylor.

http://fox2now.com/2016/01/03/north-st- ... ck-by-car/

How much does that guy charge per building?
KSDK - City to demolish hundreds of vacant buildings

ST. LOUIS - Wild animals and drug dealers, those are just just two of the problems neighbors say they have to deal with because of a large, vacant home in their north city neighborhood.


http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/5-on-you ... /258534648
While understanding the frustration and the need to do "something", our city and region completely lack any conversation about vacancy, preservation, and urban planning.
I have trouble believing that demolition is the cheapest option for many buildings, especially some of the ones in that article. Replacing roofs and chimney caps, cleaning gutters, closing up openings, and tuckpointing would take care of most 'problem' buildings and cost tens of thousands in a decade per building until a community group or an individual can take it on. Plywood is cheaper than demolition and has much better outcomes.
Any idea how much it costs per house, assuming average size, to demo one house?
^ could be wrong, but my recollection is seeing a figure of $10,000 average per house in Saint Louis.
The MSD demolitions were entirely preventable if the city had not left WG/Baden to rot for 60 years, especially after the dire warnings of this report I have hosted on my website, http://openarchivestl.net/?p=2718.
^ sad to hear about the needless destruction; keep us posted on the event date and welcome to the jungle here.
Interesting. A great example of how St. Louis (under the influence of carrots and sticks from above) didn't fix itself rather spent its wealth building on the edges and the new infrastructure to serve it which undermined the property values of already existing places.
I was told this is neighborhood only, so ignore my previous posting regarding a meeting.
Link?
Btw what happened to the horseshoe? It looks like it was urban renewed.
quincunx wrote:
Btw what happened to the horseshoe? It looks like it was urban renewed.


It was cleared, it's a retention basin now. Ashland basically follows the path of Harlem Creek and thus sees the worst flooding when it rains. Union to Clara and beyond (thru the horseshoe) is ground zero for MSD buyouts...50 years this area saw regular flooding during rain due to poorly constructed sewers.

Gotta think there was something more than "it's too expensive" at play for why the city let the homes in this corridor get to the point of needing demolition.
I recall some show about gangs in St. Louis. One was the horseshoe gang who wore Indiana Colts gear and lived there.