Tapatalk

MSD to demo buildings

MSD to demo buildings

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostDec 22, 2015#1

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

249
Junior MemberJunior Member
249

PostDec 22, 2015#2

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"?

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostDec 22, 2015#3

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.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 22, 2015#4

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.

249
Junior MemberJunior Member
249

PostDec 22, 2015#5

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.

8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 22, 2015#6

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.

249
Junior MemberJunior Member
249

PostDec 22, 2015#7

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.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostDec 27, 2015#8

I see runoff from north city homes has closed I-70 in St. Charles County!

1,465
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,465

PostDec 28, 2015#9

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.

1,864
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,864

PostDec 28, 2015#10

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.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJan 04, 2016#11

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/

1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostJan 04, 2016#12

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?

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJun 29, 2016#13

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

11K
Life MemberLife Member
11K

PostJun 29, 2016#14

While understanding the frustration and the need to do "something", our city and region completely lack any conversation about vacancy, preservation, and urban planning.

472
Full MemberFull Member
472

PostJun 29, 2016#15

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.

289
Full MemberFull Member
289

PostJul 01, 2016#16

Any idea how much it costs per house, assuming average size, to demo one house?

2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJul 01, 2016#17

^ could be wrong, but my recollection is seeing a figure of $10,000 average per house in Saint Louis.

5
New MemberNew Member
5

PostJul 01, 2016#18

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.

2,430
Life MemberLife Member
2,430

PostJul 01, 2016#19

^ sad to hear about the needless destruction; keep us posted on the event date and welcome to the jungle here.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostJul 01, 2016#20

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.

5
New MemberNew Member
5

PostAug 16, 2016#21

I was told this is neighborhood only, so ignore my previous posting regarding a meeting.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostAug 16, 2016#22

Link?

PostAug 16, 2016#23

Btw what happened to the horseshoe? It looks like it was urban renewed.

5
New MemberNew Member
5

PostAug 16, 2016#24

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.

13K
Life MemberLife Member
13K

PostAug 17, 2016#25

I recall some show about gangs in St. Louis. One was the horseshoe gang who wore Indiana Colts gear and lived there.

Read more posts (22 remaining)