Nice write-up on Hyde Park from mayorslay.com:



Building in North St. Louis



Is Hyde Park the next Old North ? a magnet for young St. Louisans with patience, space heaters, and the ability to shingle a roof? The two neighborhoods share a lot of history, some architecture, and a political boundary. But, while Old North fairly buzzes with plans, energy, and investment, most of Hyde Park is still waiting to be noticed by realtors and mortgage lenders.



That may be changing, though. Tomorrow, the Missouri Housing Development Commission is scheduled to meet to consider my request for funding to move along a $15 million mixed-use development by Better Living Communities. Once completed, the fifteen block ?Salisbury Park? will have market rate and restricted income apartments, and new single family homes. Better Living has also promised to bring recreational, educational and social support services to the neighborhood?s residents.



A lot of attention is focused on our efforts to revitalize Downtown St. Louis. Rightly so. Downtown is enjoying a renaissance that is generating notice far beyond St. Louis. But, the less frequently told story ? even at home ? is the development in other places in the City, including some north St. Louis neighborhoods that have not seen new investment in decades.

The Web site for Better Living Communities has recently been updated. There are several photos of the completed homes.



http://betterlivingcommunities.org/photos.htm



(I've only been in St Louis for a short time -- about 6 months -- but I'm already fascinated by this city. Though we live in Maplewood, we attend services at Bethlehem Lutheran, so I'm particularly interested in Hyde Park because of that.)

Jmedwick, I also hold great feelings for Bethlehem Lutheran. I attended the grade school in the late 50's. I drive by from time to time, the last time I was actualy inside the church was in the early 70's. It looks as if neglect has begun to get the best of the church as the large stained glass windows have collapsed into the sanctuary...if something isn't done soon, it may be lost forever...so sad, such a beautiful church. What's left of the congregation meets at the school. That's all I know about it, unless something has come up in an effort to save it quite recently.

I'm glad to see that Better Living promised educational and social support services to this development. Many of these people that will live here have lived and witnessed things I probably can't even think of. They need support to move from the past and hopefully, these homes and services help them.



Looking at the pictures though - man that siding looks like crap. I would have prefered even front brick-facing to that - sad that there is no way to get federal money to provide for brick-construction. These homes likely won't exist in 50 years, unlike brick homes that are being built.

Well, I've only been at Bethlehem a short time (about six months) so I don't claim to know everything. Much of what I do know was passed along by other people at church, and may -- or may not -- be 100% factual.



My husband is a student at Concordia Seminary and we were "randomly assigned" to Bethlehem for field work. Honestly, we are so happy to have been put into this congregation! It's an amazing group of people. Small, but certainly thriving. They have a very strong youth/community outreach program. They are the driving force behind Better Living Communities, also. Aside from the sadness of the old church building (which many people look at as being in the past already), there are great things happening here.



Marmar is correct that the congregation meets in the school building now. About 10 years ago they remodeled the basement of the school (used to be a bowling alley down there, I heard!). They salvaged the pews and a few other things from the old church for the new sanctuary.



The condition of the old building is very sad. They simply don't have the money to rehab it ... reviving the neighborhood is much more important to the pastor and the congregation than saving the old building. It's about PEOPLE at Bethlehem, not property. (This next statement is just RUMOR) but someone from the congregation told me they would like to raze the old church because it's a hazard, but don't have the money for that and can't fight against the historical status.



The building itself has never been in top-notch condition either, having suffered a fire in its first year and a massive tornado in the 1920s. Since the congregation moved into the other building, vandals and thieves have destroyed or looted a lot -- they've even stolen the large hinges off the front doors and pulled the copper flashing off the roof in places. I haven't been inside it because it looks dangerous. I could see into the old building from the third floor gym windows of the school and the balcony appears to have partially collapsed.



There are some photos at Built St Louis and the Ecology of Absence from a few years ago:

http://www.builtstlouis.net/churches/church01.html

http://www.eco-absence.org/stl/blc/



Metzgda -- true, the building materials at Salisbury Park aren't top-of-the-line. Certainly not brick, or the quality materials of the original homes of Hyde Park. But I'm sure it was a cost issue. I've been inside one of the houses, and they are quite nice. The workmanship is good quality. They will be wonderful homes for the new residents, regardless. (Again, the emphasis here is on people, not property).



The good news is Better Living Communities has recently been awarded additional state tax-credits, and even some federal funds, I believe, to continue this development over the next ten years. I don't know what the next phases of the project entail, but I'm hoping this includes more rehabbing of older neighborhood buildings (they're done some rehabs prior to the new construction project). I'm also not sure exactly what the "educational and social support services" refer to, but as I mentioned, I don't know what the future plans are.



All in all, I'm excited to see this kind of neighborhood revival going on, without the gentrification or "out-classing" of the residents. I'm curious how people in the community are reacting to it though. Being that I'm "on the inside" of the church involved and not a resident of the neighborhood, I wonder how people see this kind of development. Is it a positive thing? Is the church too involved? Does the neighborhood want this?

Bethlehem actually has six sister congregations (mostly County/suburban) that partner with it in one way or another -- be it building projects or community outreach. They do a street ministry project in the summers, bringing folks in from the 'burbs to North St Louis. The sister churches actually do a lot to help keep Bethlehem going.



Being involved in the Seminary field work program is also a great thing for both Bethlehem and the seminarians. The experience and relationships that we're building there are invaluable.

Can someone live at the church to keep gaurd over it? Parsonage?

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...