1,299
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,299

PostFeb 20, 2016#26

I'm agnostic on St. Bridget's; I'm angry about 4th Baptist.

Granted, the demolition of St. Bridget's is regrettable due to its own significant historic value and seems just sort of dumb. But the ties it had to a once intact neighborhood are decades ago in memory. Losing it will be sad, but the greater loss of the surrounding neighborhood started before most of us were even born.

Fourth Baptist, on the other hand, is a loss due to stubbornness, pigheadedness, ignorance, lack of vision, lack of empathy, lack of compassion, lack of neighborhood sensitivity, selfishness, lack of creativity, lack of listening, lack of collaboration, and greed.

So that one, well, it just pisses me off.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 20, 2016#27

Northside Neighbor wrote:...but the greater loss of the surrounding neighborhood started before most of us were even born.
yes, but my point is that the same reasoning that resulted in the loss of much of the neighborhood ("well, the context on this block has been eroded so the remaining few homes aren't important" and then "well, this block is gone so there's not much context for the block next door") is still being used to defend the loss of structures that have merit in and of themselves, apart from any other buildings that may or may not still exist.
Northside Neighbor wrote:Fourth Baptist, on the other hand, is a loss due to stubbornness, pigheadedness, ignorance, lack of vision, lack of empathy, lack of compassion, lack of neighborhood sensitivity, selfishness, lack of creativity, lack of listening, lack of collaboration, and greed.
funny. i would choose the exact same words to describe the behavior of De Ls Salle and potentially the alderman in their selfish, visionless, thoughtless decision to demolish St. Bridget. if there were nowhere else for the school to expand i would begrudgingly understand and accept it. but that's not the case.

1,299
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,299

PostFeb 20, 2016#28

yes, but my point is that the same reasoning that resulted in the loss of much of the neighborhood ("well, the context on this block has been eroded so the remaining few homes aren't important" and then "well, this block is gone so there's not much context for the block next door") is still being used to defend the loss of structures that have merit in and of themselves, apart from any other buildings that may or may not still exist.
I don't think the situation is anywhere near this complicated. The buildings were demolished because they had deteriorated to the point of no return and were falling down.

St. Louis doesn't go around willy nilly demolishing buildings (I'm referring to LRA and the Building Division). The city demolishes buildings as a last resort. It's always been basically a triage situation where only the worst of the worse are taken down.

Don't believe me? Look around Hyde Park. Look at the slew of buildings falling down on N. Florissant and throughout the JVL area. There is no "defending the loss of structures".

The problem is, as in the case of 4th Baptist, there is no defending buildings from abandonment and neglect. And the problem starts with irresponsible private owners and a weak system of building protection.

St. Louis needs to be more aggressive with the opportunity to take over stewardship of vacant buildings through the state's receivership laws.

But once again, for a lack of money, it would be a triage situation.

And yes, back to ironies, it is ironic the owners of St. Bridget's appear to be headed toward a path of demolition, on what is essentially a structurally sound building, while on the other hand, many structurally unsound and unsafe buildings still stand by little more than fading dust left in old mortar joints.

PS: What was my vision? That 4th Baptist would have been converted to a mini Ryman Auditorium, ONSL-style. Where live shows could have been held, walking distance within the neighborhood. Instead, thanks to the "church", we have a pile of nothing.

If you can't tell, I'm real over the whole, "faith based" justification for much of anything. My preference is for "place based". Sad fact is, too often "faith based" trumps "place based", and we get nothing.

Read more posts (-22 remaining)