...as I type. Per Landmarks on Facebook:

When Landmarks listed Fourth Baptist Church in Old North St. Louis on our Most Endangered List in 2009, the following information was provided:
"On September 20, 2008, a devastating fire struck the Fourth Baptist Church in Old North. The church buildings already had been vacated after the small, cash-strapped congregation could not afford to fix a boiler failure in 2002. The fire left the church annex with a gaping hole in its front wall and the lovely sanctuary severely damaged. The sanctuary is definitely salvageable, but the congregation lacks the means to undertake necessary stabilization."
For the next seven years the building sat vacant and now it is being demolished. The location is the corner of 13th and Sullivan in Old North. These pictures were taken yesterday afternoon.

Images by Matt Fernandez on Facebook

This demolition is nothing but a waste. Yes, by now the building is a total loss. But the story starts with an irresponsible "faith-based" organization at its helm some years ago.

This demolition needs to be a wake up call to concerned citizens of St. Louis.

We need to do much better than this.

^ yep. and we're about to lose St. Bridget Erin to stupid, unnecessary demo as well.

Yes, but there is a big difference between the latter and the former.

In the case of St. Bridget Erin, the owner has plans for an alternative use of the site.

In the case of 4th Baptist, the owner had no plans, just a boneheaded unwavering intent to "own" the building - and let it rot until it burned down.

Northside Neighbor wrote:In the case of St. Bridget Erin, the owner has plans for an alternative use of the site.

Yes, but the site is immediately adjacent to cheap vacant land on all sides—land that could be purchased for less than the cost of demo. I see little difference between demolition by neglect and demolition by default due to indifference.

Yes, but the site is immediately adjacent to cheap vacant land on all sides—land that could be purchased for less than the cost of demo. I see little difference between demolition by neglect and demolition by default due to indifference.

Fair enough.

Has anyone engaged the church about this or other alternative approaches?

And what if they say they can no longer afford to maintain the church but could afford to put a new building there?

Perhaps that's the opening for some creative problem solving/conversations?

My impression is the area where this church sits is a veritable no-mans land. Is it in the footprint of any organized community group?

Northside Neighbor wrote:Has anyone engaged the church about this or other alternative approaches?

i doubt anyone even knew about it until recently. since Ms. Hubbard won't support preservation review in her ward, there's no way to know until the owner applies for demolition. and with no legal means to stop the demolition, there's very little time to try and do anything about it.

Northside Neighbor wrote:And what if they say they can no longer afford to maintain the church but could afford to put a new building there?

they can't afford to maintain the church, but they can apparently afford to spend several hundred thousand dollars to demolish it. it would make more financial sense to spend $0 on demolition, build the new structure on one of the many vacant adjacent lots (it's discouraging how often this get repeated and ignored in this city), and actually make an effort to find a new use for the church. even if they give the church away for free they'll end up with more money in their pockets. the church is in good condition and according to Landmarks has even recently been tuck-pointed. Of course, De La Salle has apparently opened all the windows to speed up deterioration, just in case anyone questions their absurdity.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Perhaps that's the opening for some creative problem solving/conversations?

perhaps if the owner were interested in listening to reason and weren't trying to get the building down before anyone notices.

Northside Neighbor wrote:My impression is the area where this church sits is a veritable no-mans land. Is it in the footprint of any organized community group?

ironic that it's a no-man's land because everything's been razed, yet... as for community groups, i have no idea.

.. as for community groups, i have no idea.

The irony here is huge.

Buildings over people. <smh>

If you want to get anything done, you need to work with people.

Knowing the landscape of human capital, particularly in St. Louis, is vastly more important than knowing the physical landscape.

Northside Neighbor wrote:
The irony here is huge.

Buildings over people. <smh>

give me a break. there's zero irony in that I, personally, don't know if there are community groups nearby that could buy the building. and if the owner of the building, in a preservation-review-free ward, is unwilling to make an effort then it makes little difference anyway. while dramatic, "buildings over people" is hardly the case here; De La Salle has ample cheap land on which to expand. destroying this church is an absolute pointless waste.

Northside Neighbor wrote:If you want to get anything done, you need to work with people.

Except if you're a charter school that wants to demolish a beautiful, historic, and perfectly sound building without drawing attention.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Knowing the landscape of human capital, particularly in St. Louis, is vastly more important than knowing the physical landscape.

words.

give me a break. there's zero irony in that I, personally, don't know if there are community groups nearby that could buy the building

Never suggested that a community group should buy the building. The point instead was that an organized community group has much better leverage than individuals complaining about anything. Weighing in on an issue as a respected community organization brings credibility.

^ an organized group, in general, has better leverage than individuals acting separately. but people can't organize if they aren't first made aware of the issue, and in order to find people with similar opinions it's generally useful to express one's own opinions. oh, and it's a blog.

So, what's Tammika Hubbard's reasoning for opting out of preservation review? Is it her ties to McKee or does she just not gaf like Terry Kennedy?

maybe I'm making this up, but my impression is that certain north side aldermen see preservation review as a tool for gentrification and an intrusion on their communities. i guess living in the middle of a desert is preferable.

That's my impression as well. The aldermen are trying to limit redevelopment because a better educated, higher income constituency would vote them out of office quickly.

maybe I'm making this up, but my impression is that certain north side aldermen see preservation review as a tool for gentrification and an intrusion on their communities. i guess living in the middle of a desert is preferable.

If it's the "middle of a desert", then what's the point of preservation review?

That's my impression as well. The aldermen are trying to limit redevelopment because a better educated, higher income constituency would vote them out of office quickly.

Back it up with one credible reference to any alderman not wanting a "better educated, higher income constituency" in their ward or this city.

words.

Tell me about it.

Northside Neighbor wrote:If it's the "middle of a desert", then what's the point of preservation review?

None, I guess. Apparently there is no point to preserving buildings that—arbitrarily—aren't surrounded by other buildings. Not to preserve their beauty. Not to preserve history. Not to preserve resources. No reason.

Arbitrarily? An arbitrary urban desert? I don't get the "arbitrary" remark.

Quite the opposite. The whole situation seems highly intentional to me.

The desert is the result of decades of urban decay, abandonment, and disinvestment.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Arbitrarily? An arbitrary urban desert? I don't get the "arbitrary" remark.

The arbitrary demand that a building have "context" in order to be worthy of salvaging.

Northside Neighbor wrote:The desert is the result of decades of urban decay, abandonment, and disinvestment.

a slow chipping-away, building by building. seems almost apropos to this discussion for some reason...

If you want to see some good examples of historic preservation in an area without context, take a tour of the Lucas Heights neighborhood.

The area today is mostly newer apartments and townhomes built in the 1980s. Sprinkled in are two and three story 19th century townhouses. For reference, the area is to the north and west of the Scott Joplin house, not far frankly from the site of St. Bridget's.

How sad and lonely those few remaining historic buildings look in that sea of more cheaply built, vinyl clad, new construction.

I think a case could be made that had they decided at the time to clear those few remaining historic buildings from the area when it was redeveloped, the area would be no worse for the wear. (Indeed, there are remaining a few of these 19th century buildings standing in the area, vacant and rapidly deteriorating. Expect them to be demolished in favor of new construction eventually.)

Indeed, if you are taking people on a tour of St. Louis historic areas, very few would take them to see these buildings.

Northside Neighbor wrote:How sad and lonely those few remaining historic buildings look in that sea of more cheaply built, vinyl clad, new construction...

sadder than a sea of cheaply built sh*t with NO beautiful old homes interspersed? nah, not buying it.

Northside Neighbor wrote:I think a case could be made that had they decided at the time to clear those few remaining historic buildings from the area when it was redeveloped, the area would be no worse for the wear.

functionally, perhaps not. aesthetically, it absolutely would be worse for wear. culturally, the entire city is worse for the wear. obviously if you don't view these buildings as individually beautiful or important then you're not going to care if a few more teeth get knocked out.

Northside Neighbor wrote:(Indeed, there are remaining a few of these 19th century buildings standing in the area, vacant and rapidly deteriorating. Expect them to be demolished in favor of new construction eventually.)

yeah, eventually the pyramids, the Coliseum, and the Parthenon will come toppling down too so might as well just sack 'em now. it's not as if old structures serve any inspirational, aesthetic, educational, or practical purposes today.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Indeed, if you are taking people on a tour of St. Louis historic areas, very few would take them to see these buildings.

this is not meant to be an insult, but if your view of old buildings is that they're only good for tours then I'm not surprised at your lack of concern for these buildings.

Comparing these buildings to the Pyramids? Now I've heard everything.

urban_dilettante wrote:




Images by Matt Fernandez on Facebook

Hey, those are my pictures.

This is sad, but as NN noted, the fate of this building was sealed before the fire by a congregation that stuck to the idea that they would be able to do something with the building instead of actively trying to get it into new hands. I knew Richard Taylor, the last Pastor. Fine man, but not suited to handle this building after the congregation got too small. Once the fire happened it was all over. Demolition is only happening now because it got dangerous enough, but it wasn't ever going to be saved. It was a matter of when, not if.

^ while definitely sad, and a shame that the congregation sat on it for so long, i do understand demo'ing Fourth Baptist Church given it's condition. i'm more upset and baffled about St. Bridget exactly because it's in great condition, has been recently maintained, and is surrounded by nothing but cheap vacant land to build on. there is just no legitimate reason to raze it at this point.

STLEnginerd wrote:There is inherent value in things that cannot be replaced. These historic building if lost will be gone forever, and most likely forgotten. If we do lose them we should be sure it is to replace them with something better, that could not be built easily in a nearby alternative place.

yep. unfortunately whatever replaces them will certainly be of lesser architectural quality because that's the economic reality of today.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Comparing these buildings to the Pyramids? Now I've heard everything.

actually, no, i didn't. i applied your reasoning that "they're goin' down eventually so might as well be now" to other old structures that you might consider deserving of preservation. so why do you care so much about the pyramids? they're not doing much for St. Louis in any case. for St. Louis' identity and culture, Fourth Baptist and St. Bridget are much more important than the pyramids.