I know it is mentioned elsewhere but I thought this was important enough to merit its own thread

UMSL wants to tear down parts of Incarnate Word for... green space, like they need that -

Story from the Post-

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 69660.html

Facebook page to rally support

https://www.facebook.com/SaveIncarnateWordConvent

Demolition is looming for the convent. I encourage everyone to visit the Save Inarnate Word Convent Facebook page for updates and actionable… actions.

https://www.facebook.com/SaveIncarnateW ... nt?fref=nf

UMSL is being really shady about the whole thing. A comment from the FB page proprietor concerning UMSL's designed-to-fail RFP process:

They've taken the RFP/guidelines offline but they were really - insanely - strict. Why they rejected Kevin's proposal wasn't ever really explained... Today they clearly tried to imply that it was in some way inappropriate for Kevin Buchek - the Bel-Nor Committee Chairperson - to be awarded an opportunity to rehab the building, despite the fact that there's clearly not a money grab at stake. This St. Louis Public Radio article explores it a bit: http://news.stlpublicradio.org/.../raze-or-not-raze-old...

I've stayed out of this discussion for the most part because I really don't know much about the story. But like the demo debate in the bond issue discussion, I sort of have the same thought about the role of "people" in this case.

If this building were to be save, then saved for whom? Which people are pushing to save it and for whom?

From a broader context, I get the impression the historic context of this building is mostly lost. Was it connected to a church or neighborhood? Are those still standing? UMSL is a collection of mostly if not all post 1960s modern buildings and parking lots.

Isn't this convent sort of lost in time and space with the change in the Normandy landscape around UMSL?

But mostly, what about the human element? If UMSL owns the building, has no purpose for it, has other intent for the ground under it, then what do preservationists suggest? Turning it into a museum about the former convent? Who would pay to run it and who would visit it?

Well, I just read the links and they don't help that much.

Couldn't find any map or site plan of the area to get some sense of the surroundings.

Couldn't find any info about other proposed uses for the building.

Just a lot of memories and sentiment about preserving the old building.

That's not much of a case. Is there anything more?

Well, that is strange.

Tear it down just out of spite? Or do they think a vacant lot is better than a preserved and re-utilized building?

Not very green-minded of them, that's for sure.

The convent is saved!!!

dmmonty1 wrote:The convent is saved!!!

For now? Or saved with a plan?

^ I think the for now category is best or my understanding as per UMSL comments in PD article. Sounds like a big challenge

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/educ ... 7f674.html

The problem we have is too many vacant buildings without a use costing millions to renovate. Then preservationist go into an uproar when a vacant building is slated for demolition. It's like we're talking past each other. Where's the plan? What's the priority?

Does the Incarnate Word Convent warrant public subsidy for preservation? Compared to what other vacant building/neighborhood/local governmental priorities? And since it's in St. Louis County, who's in charge there for setting a preservation agenda? "Saving" a building from demolition isn't really a "save" until it has a plan and financing for reuse.

In the meantime, UMSL and Missouri taxpayers will be footing the bill to maintain a vacant building. That's not a win. Call it a "temporary stay". And, ironically, if as a result of all the public outcry about this one demolition, state policy makers decide to put it at the top of a priority list for public funding, then other worthy, perhaps more needed developments, will be crowded out.

I'd say there is a clear use for this particular building. Its obvious to me at least that the conceptualized senior housing proposal was a viable option. Yes it would cost millions but what new development doesn't.

Can't think of any senior housing developments that are not driven by heavy public financing. So to rehab the convent for this use likely means a major public subsidy, not modest. HUD 202 grants and federal and state low income housing tax credits are 2 typical sources to fund senior housing, and both programs are difficult to access.

Off the top of my head, I think the two biggest wasted historic preservation opportunities in STL County were the demo of the historic Rock Hill church at McKnight and Manchester for a U-Gas filling station and convenience store and the demo of the Coral Courts Motel for a subdivision of vinyl sided houses.

Both of these seem far more historically significant to the history of St. Louis than the convent on the UMSL campus. Convents and Catholic churches are a dime a dozen in St. Louis, with many vacant, underutilized, abandoned, or demolished. And they all suffer from the same challenge: huge buildings with few finding a viable reuse.

The other ongoing threat to the historic fabric of St. Louis County is the continuing demolition of historic homes in Clayton for big new mansions and multi-unit, high dollar, townhouse developments.

Does anyone know the historic significance of the Incarnate Word Convent? Does it stand out in any way? Historic location? Historic architect? Historic events or persons associated with the building? Maybe a Vatican-authenticated miracle?

Seriously. What makes the building historically significant to St. Louis, Missouri, or US history?

^ I've never understood why a historic building needs to be "historically significant" in order to be worthy of preservation. whether or not funds can be found to save it is another matter, but it's "worthy" simply because it's one of a dying breed—a beautiful, solid, masonry structure that we no longer have the means to build. once they're gone, they're gone, and the economics are now such that only a handful of similarly-scaled modern buildings can hold a candle to them in terms of longevity.

I've never understood why a historic building needs to be "historically significant" in order to be worthy of preservation. whether or not funds can be found to save it is another matter, but it's "worthy" simply because it's one of a dying breed—a beautiful, solid, masonry structure that we no longer have the means to build. once they're gone, they're gone, and the economics are now such that only a handful of similarly-scaled modern buildings can hold a candle to them in terms of longevity.

Worthy of preservation vs. financially feasible for preservation are two different things. Or maybe not. That's a question.

What's not a question is that if it's historically significant and eligible, it could be listed in the Secretary of Interior's National Register of Historic Places (or whatever the official name), qualifying rehabilitation expenditures for state and possibly federal historic rehabilitation tax credits. Those tax credits can go a long way towards making its redevelopment financially feasible.

Does anyone know if the Incarnate Word Convent is already on the National Register, or if its nomination is pending (and who's paying for it)? Would UMSL lease the building to a for profit owner for 99 years to make it eligible for private financing? Is this building landlocked by public property on the UMSL campus? Seems a lot of hair present on this situation.

National Register nomination efforts are lengthy (about a year) and expensive (about $10,000 for a single site). Someone has to come out of pocket on the nomination and there's no guarantee of approval.

As to this statement:

...but it's "worthy" simply because it's one of a dying breed—a beautiful, solid, masonry structure that we no longer have the means to build....

It's silly. The St. Louis region was built of brick. We have tens of thousands of brick buildings in St. Louis. They are not a "dying breed". We are swimming in them. Our problem is that we have too many vacant and abandoned ones than we can fill with viable uses.

Why is it that the preservation conversation so often seems to go from one rather high profile "emergency" situation to another, only to have countless other irreplaceable brick structures literally getting no attention and rather just moldering into the ground? Is it all because of social media?