urbanSTL

Well, there is no parsonage.



Really, the vandalism/looting damage has been done collectively over the past decade. It's not as if people are sneaking in daily to scavenge for scrap metal.



The new Salisbury Park development is right across the street. As that progresses and more people move into the area surrounding the church over the next few years, I'm sure there will be much change in the neighborhood. Whether or not that means restoring the church or razing it to make way for new development is yet to be seen.



I agree that it's sad to watch the decay of such a beautiful building. The fact of the matter is, the community at Bethlehem has higher priorities than saving that old building. A building doesn't make a church -- the people do. Rebuilding Hyde Park as a strong, vital community of people -- not bricks and mortar -- is the focus.

Thanks for the reports, New-to-STL, and welcome to the forum. I agree with your perspective. As much as we would all love to see the perfectly designed and built dream-city, sometimes we really do need to think about the people of a community first.

New-to-STL, the housing in "Salisbury Park" looks like absolute crap, PERIOD. This is the kind of thing that makes serious rehabbers look elsewhere. I had dreamed of someday seeing this neighborhood become something like Soulard. With this kind of development, it won't happen. I know many of the people here are poor, but like I said before, must we take advantage of the poor by lumping them all together, housing them in unattrative cheap looking housing? That is exactly what is going on here. Shame on the city, shame on the developers, and shame on anyone who thinks this is a good idea. (This is why places such as Pruitt-Igoe failed...can't you see that?)

Since you are a new commer to St. Louis, I'm sad that you are not sensitive to those of us who grew up here and have seen slumlords ruin much of our beloved north city. It continues with crap like this. Housing for the poor is not an acceptable excuse to build housing like this. Indeed, there is affordable housing for low income people in the city built in the 80's and 90's that is far more attractive and fitting to the city.

Thanks for the extremely informative posts, new-to-STL, and welcome to the forum. Outgoing newcomers like you are just what St. Louis needs.



I like this thread because it really gets to the heart of urbanism, and how people exist within urban contexts. No shortage of strong opinions over how to define urban, as Marmar can attest to!



Marmar, I love reading your posts and I'm always glad to see you fighting for the architectural spirit of the city. But new-to-STL makes plenty of valid points here, so why not give this new development a chance. The more stabilization we see on the north side, the better chance we have of saving the historic buildings that remain.[/i]

Thanks for the welcomes ... and also for the scolding by Marmar (am I "initiated" now?)



I do understand your point, Marmar. The housing is cheap. I'm not denying that.



But I toured that house with a few people from the neighborhood, who are living with eight kids in a two bedroom apartment. They were absolutely shocked to see how nice these new houses were -- that they could actually afford to live in on their budget.



I do appreciate your desire for new & infill housing to reflect the original character of the neighborhoods. I agree that in an ideal world, this would be the case.



When it comes down to it though, which is more important? Putting brick facades on the buildings, or being able to provide one more home for a deserving family to live in?



It would be great to see Hyde Park restored like Soulard has been. But that takes a lot of resources. Could the same people afford to live there once it was rehabbed? I don't see them in Soulard; that much I do know.



.....



I'm going to try to avoid taking the detour to dispute your assertion that Pruitt-Igoe failed because it was "unattrative cheap looking housing" though I disagree with your reasoning there.

new-to-STL wrote:When it comes down to it though, which is more important? Putting brick facades on the buildings, or being able to provide one more home for a deserving family to live in?

Brick Facades........................................jk

JMedwick -- I'm not sure who the sister churches are off the top of my head, and they're not listed on Bethlehem's Web site. I know there's one in Chesterfield (Lord of Life, maybe?).



If I remember others, I will let you know.



EPIC Ministries (under Rev. Larry Bell) also does quite a bit of work with Bethlehem and other city churches in St Louis. Rev. Bell organizes service and mission projects for churches/organizations and partners them with other churches "in need" throughout the bi-state area.



Edit:

I found the list, though it only gives the shortened common nicknames we use for the sister churches and not their locations. Maybe you can figure them out from here: St. Mark, Lord of Life, Faith, Resurrection, Webster Gardens, and Jefferson Co. Mission.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, new-to-STL--and I offer my apologies, but, being new to STL, please hear me out as one who is born and raised here. I love this city, more than any city--ANYWHERE! As such, I only want the BEST for it, everyone in it, including the poor. What do I love about it? It's unique architecture, it's "look". (I don't know how much you know about architecture, you may not even care about the subject, but please believe me this city was blessed with a massive amount of brick turn of the century architecture. It is known by many as a "brick city".)

I practically grew up in Hyde Park (the neighborhood where this development is being built). I remember the urban feel, how much I felt like I was in a "real city"...seeing cities like Philadelphia, parts of New York and Boston and coming back to St. Louis and seeing that there wasn't much difference in the way these kind of neighborhoods looked...almost identical. I hate to see that destroyed, and this horendous development does destroy this.

Like I said, building such cheap looking structures for the less fortunate is no excuse. I'm sure they were quite impressed when they saw the photos of the new development, but then these people are not well educated and very unlikely don't take much interest in architecture, architectural preservation and urban lifestyles. Understandably, these subjects are the farthest things from their minds. So, I ask anyone again, must we be so calous toward the poor that we really don't care what their housing looks like, as long as they like it and we know where it is so we can stay clear?

I'd rather see the kind of structures similar to King Louis Square built, with a mix of affordability so that this neighborhood will not again fall into the despair that made it undesirable in the first place.

You sound like a very caring person, new-to-STL, and I'm happy there is someone who cares about these poor people. I think many of us could learn something from you about these unfortunate people. If such people were in my neighborhood I'd like to see people like you there...it would want me to help out in some way. I think that's what this city really needs. And we don't need to build ugly housing projects that hides them away from "the good part of the city" where no one goes, no one cares.

P.S. Welcome to Saint Louis, new-to-STL. (and again, my apologies if I offended you...I do get quite carried away at times...)

Marmar, I don't intend to dodge a reply to your post entirely, but I have limited time at the moment. I will consider your comments and respond when I have more time. Don't worry -- I'm not personally offended by you expressing your opinions on a subject you are so obviosuly passionate about. In fact, I'm glad there are people like you who care so deeply about this city -- though I may not fully agree with you on some points.



Anyway, I wanted to post this information from 2004, when the project was approved by the Preservation Board. I think it addresses some of your issues with the development being out of character for Hyde Park. I'm not saying I agree entirely with this rationale, but here it is.



http://www.ci.st-louis.mo.us/citygov/pl ... T27_04.pdf

(Pages 30-45 of this pdf pertain to Salisbury Park)



Here are a few a applicable excerpts:



... Management of historic resources in areas that contend with intractable poverty and property abandonment is an ongoing struggle. Alderman Bosley, with his partners in the Better Living Community, made a decision to redefine a corner of the historic district as a new kind of place, with new buildings, revised street patterns, and higher property values within a small enclave. He did this by passing a redevelopment ordinance that required demolition of all the buildings within the defined project area so that the new construction would be isolated from the historic context. The area contained 130 parcels of land with sixty existing structures, most of which contributed to the historic district.



Now that the historic resources are gone, it is important to look at the vacant land as an opportunity to build a community that will contribute value, not only to the remaining historic district, but to the city as a whole. The decision of the developers to depart from the forms and materials of the surrounding context will further set the limited access community apart from the district, and will offer a contrast in future years such as the Kingsbury Square development in the Skinker DeBaliviere neighborhood offers. The Better Living Community has made a concerted effort to work with City officials to improve the project ...



And...



... The proposed new construction will be modeled after wood frame Arts and Crafts style buildings which were popular in the early 20th Century. Great care has been taken with the detailing of the houses so that they retain an authentic appearance. The materials which include concrete foundations and vinyl sided exteriors do not meet District standards, however the Board has approved the use of vinyl siding in other historic districts when design details and the overall plan support the use of lap siding. ...



Alright ... I know I just opened a can of worms by acknowledging that some existing properties were razed rather than rehabbed. But the PHASE I area in question was already mostly vacant lots immediately prior to this development. There are also several structures cited in the proposal that are slated for rehab by Better Living Communities.



(Edited a bit for clarification).

more good information. thanks again, new-to-STL.



and Marmar: never, never, never give up your high standards. it's true we need to try and provide housing for everyone, but as you so rightly point out, our historic building stock is what connects us to the people who lived in st. louis before any of us were here.



jeez i'm starting to sound like a new age traveller, so just one more point and then i'll shut up.



in the case of this development, maybe alderman bosley had a good reason to make an exception to the historic district standards. overall, however, we should avoid cheap materials and the Suburban Revival style whenever possible.

I agree with LouLou's sentiments

That standards should remain high

That the older housing connects us to our predecessors

That this project should be an exemption to the rule and not a precedent for new housing in Hyde Park, which was once a neighborhood on par with Lafayette Square.



I do like Bosley's idea of separating this development from the stronghold of Hyde Park itself and surrounding blocks so as to bring up property values gradually. However, that slower process of rebuilding/rehabbing a neighborhood from poverty conflicts with the gentrification model in Soulard and Lafayette Square.



In general Hyde Park and other North St. Louis neighborhoods need people, both black and white, of high enough incomes to test the waters by rehabbing to show the way for risk taking developers. This is a stabilization from HUD and section 8 verse stabilization of slow gentrification to market value/competing new construction.

Does that seem like a fuzy description of the scenarios?



We need a blanket moratorium on halting destruction/bull dozing of historic buildings in the City of St. Louis unless for sufficient and an end of all end possibility cause.

Thanks much for the info from the preservation board, new-to-STL. I'm glad you (and others who have done so) have access and have shared info. I too am quite busy this week end, and I didn't have time to read it all yet, just skimmed over it. But I am looking forward to your response!!



LouLou, thanks for the comments and encouragement... but I DO get carried away at times, don't I? And I won't give up on my "high standards" or compromise them either. I love our city. I want it to not just to survive, but to thrive, with all income levels, all races, all ethnicities, all the things that make a city great, and that does indeed include our wonderful architectural heritage, both old, new and that which hasn't been built yet!

Who took the cartoon of the M&Ms off this thread? That was just about the funniest thing I have seen in ages. I will never think about Pruitt-Igoe in quite the same way again...

No, Bethlehem Lutheran is not visible from there. I think you most likely are reffering to Holy Trinity (Catholic)....if it's the one with tall white (limestone) twin steeples you saw. (Beautiful old church...still in operation, I think they had some restoration done several years ago. The steeples used to be lit at night, but I've noticed in the last several years they no longer do this. Hopefully they will again light them, if the neighborhood continues to improve.)

Marmar wrote:And we don't need to build ugly housing projects that hides them away from "the good part of the city" where no one goes, no one cares.

I don't really think this is the purpose of Salisbury Park. Hyde Park (and North St Louis in general) as somewhere that "no one goes, no one cares" about is already the reality. This is an effort to stabilize the environment and bring people back.



And just because you think the houses are ugly doesn't mean they are unsuitable or insulting for people to live in. (For you to say that is, in fact, insulting to those people and is pure snobbery). I agree that they're not the gorgeous brick homes that once stood in that neighborhood. But they're not cinder block high-rise monstrosities or a haphazard shanty-town either.



I admire that you have high standards for your city. I admire that you hold to your ideals. But I think they're a bit unrealistic in some circumstances. In a perfect world, there would be enough money to build beautiful houses that anyone could live in, and we'd all live side-by-side and embrace the social or economic differences in our neighbors. But that's hardly the world we live in.

Marmar wrote:I'd rather see the kind of structures similar to King Louis Square built, with a mix of affordability so that this neighborhood will not again fall into the despair that made it undesirable in the first place.

I was not previously aware of King Louis Square. After a bit of searching, the info I found was quite interesting. It's a lovely development and I agree that it suites the surrounding urban landscape more appropriately than Salisbury Park. (Why are there no photos of the buildings on their Web site though? That's a terrible oversight, if you ask me. I had to dig deep to find images.) Though ... a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit at KLS is more than TWICE the monthly rent of a similar sized Salisbury Park townhouse. So, yes KLS is nicer. But it also costs more to live there and probably was a lot more expensive to build. (Pricing factors also may have something to do with the surrounding neighborhood of KLS moving up the socio-economic scale currently as well ... isn't this where the Georgian Condos are?)

Marmar wrote:what I meant about Pruitt-Igoe was that poor people were lumped together here and forgotten about. Architecturally, these projects were quite attractive and hailed world wide by architects, city planners and urbanists.

Really, I don't want to go off on Pruitt-Igoe ... It's a completely different thing than current low-income housing developments. And it certainly proves that being "hailed world wide by architects, city planners and urbanists" doesn't always provide a decent, usable, sustainable community for people to actually LIVE IN.



On a side note, I've seen the discussion you're involved in on this thread: http://www.urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1977. It's interesting and related to this conversation. But rather than have two parallel threads, I'll won't comment on it here. Just thought it should be looped in here for informational purposes.

SMSPlanstu wrote:That this project should be an exemption to the rule and not a precedent for new housing in Hyde Park (...)



I do like Bosley's idea of separating this development from the stronghold of Hyde Park itself and surrounding blocks so as to bring up property values gradually. However, that slower process of rebuilding/rehabbing a neighborhood from poverty conflicts with the gentrification model in Soulard and Lafayette Square.



In general Hyde Park and other North St. Louis neighborhoods need people, both black and white, of high enough incomes to test the waters by rehabbing to show the way for risk taking developers. This is a stabilization from HUD and section 8 verses stabilization of slow gentrification to market value/competing new construction.

I agree here with SMSPlanstu. I couldn't have explained it any better than that. Thank you!

New-to-STL, have you read the article linked from the Chicago Tribune titled "putting the chic back in Chicago"? If not, please read it...the whole thing (it's kind of long, but fascinating). This is exactly what I'm talking about, my hopes for our city, and I was pleasantly surprised to read that in Chicago it is actually reality.

In a nutshell, the article states that federal housing projects were miserable failures (oh, no kidding...!). Neighborhoods MUST be a mix of high/medium/and low income in order to be successful for the good of the city, for the good of helping the less fortunate (poor), and ultimately for the good of mankind. Neighborhoods in Chicago that were avoided like the plague are now becoming desireable and property values are soring because of GOOD INFILL, yet a small percentage of housing is set aside for the poor. Those moving in have decided that more can be done to help these poor people by having them living in their neighborhoods. Are you willing to have one of these poor families move into YOUR neighborhood?

What you advocate is the status quo of warehousing the poor. Housing for the poor didn't work at 12 stories. What makes you think it will work at two?

I don't understand how you equate my wanting the poor to live in just as good housing as higher income people as snobbery. I rather think it's an insult to poor people to expect them to live in crappy looking structures just because they aren't able to distinguish between what is good architecture and what is bad architecture. After all, when urbanites/vistitors to the city drive by, they know exactly who lives there and make their comments...you think this is good??

I beg to differ with you that "no one goes, no one cares" about Hyde Park and North St. Louis. However, if that's the way you feel, then why continue in this vein? Is it so these people will be far from the reality of your neck of the woods?

I care a great deal about Hyde Park and North St. Louis. Many members care. Many of the people who live there care. To trash it with cheap looking mini Pruitt-Igoes will only result in the same problem that we have been faced with for decades.

The area contained 130 parcels of land with sixty existing structures, most of which contributed to the historic district.

I haven't seen this project so I can't really say anything specific about the new houses. I trust that Alderman Bosley is extremely confident about the long-term success of this development; otherwise, he wouldn't have approved of the demolition of so many existing buildings. Here's hoping his confidence isn't misplaced!