Because the SLPS is so screwed up, they have been closing schools left and right in recent years. Last year, 5 schools were shuttered. After this school year, they propose to shutter 8 more. This is a tragedy because the St. Louis City schools are true architectural treasures and an important legacy from our city's storied past. The St. Louis public school system in the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century was emulated by school systems all across the country for their progressive management systems, teaching methods, and outstanding architecture. William Torrey Harris first brought acclaim to the St. Louis school system during his tenure as superintendent from 1868-1880. Harris was a respected Philosopher and founded the journal of Speculative Philosophy. He also was a founding member of the Concord School of Philosophy whose eminent members included Bronson and Louisa May Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson (who traveled to St. Louis to address Harris' students), and Henry D. Thoreau. Later, Harris became the United States Commissioner of Education. The reputation of the schools was further advanced when William B. Ittner became architect and commissioner of School Buildings in 1898. Ittner rapidly gained international recognition for his innovative approach to school design and brought national and international attention to the city's schools. Many of the schools that are now in complete disrepair in the city are Ittner Schools, many more that are being closed are as well. Ittner or not, the schools that are being closed (and will continue to be closed) are architecturally stunning and should not be allowed to fall into disrepair and neglect. We should all be concerned with this problem, make sure our representatives know that we are concerned with the problem, and support the adaptive re-use of these buildings whenever possible.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Bet they would make great places for Charter schools too.

are they ALLOWED to be charter schools by the SLPS? It is truly a shame what happened to a once great district. yes, the magnets are still very good, but come on, metro only has a couple hundred students out of a district of 33,000. most of these schools are in pretty good shape, from what I can tell. I think the SLPS had the first AV department in the country too.

Some letter-writer in the Southwest City Journal suggested that the City should open homeless shelters in the empty school buildings.



Personally, I agree with innov8ion. It would be great to put the buildings back to use as schools.

JCity wrote:are they ALLOWED to be charter schools by the SLPS? It is truly a shame what happened to a once great district. yes, the magnets are still very good, but come on, metro only has a couple hundred students out of a district of 33,000. most of these schools are in pretty good shape, from what I can tell. I think the SLPS had the first AV department in the country too.

I think JCity may be on to something but I can't place it. For some reason, I think that the lower school board won't sell to a charter school. But I didn't think that they had that power. If they do and won't sell to a Charter school, perhaps they should lose some more power. The childishness must end at some point.

innov8ion wrote:The childishness must end at some point.

I agree, but as long as we're talking about SLPS, I'm sure the childishness will never end.



I also agree that the best way to reuse these buildings is to take them back to their original intended use. However, there are so many architectural gems that are or will be endangered as they await the next chapter in their lives. Not far from where I live, Cleveland High School is one of the architectural crown jewels in a city rich with distinctive school buildings, but I fear for its future since little if any progress seems to be underway toward addresing its main deficiency (air conditioning along would supposedly cost $10 million, and that doesn't even address the building's other serious issues). If it can't be revived as a school, it would make a great condo development and serve as a significant anchor for a neighborhood that would truly benefit from such a development.



That said, I'd love to see these buildings reused as schools more than anything. If you need proof that newer schools generally suck, check out the Carnahan High School (of the Future, as they call it) on South Broadway near Gasconade. I refer to it as the Carnahan Minimum Security Correctional Facility of the Future- it looks more like a prison than a school to me. Mr. Ittner must've rolled over in his grave when someone suggested children should go to school in glorified barracks like Carnahan HS.

Framer wrote:Some letter-writer in the Southwest City Journal suggested that the City should open homeless shelters in the empty school buildings.



Personally, I agree with innov8ion. It would be great to put the buildings back to use as schools.

I actually think that a renovated Carr Square school might make a good homeless shelter. It's just far enough from the downtown core to satisfy the loft dwellers but close enough to transportation, social services, etc.

Considering that the SLPS sells these schools into private hands, I don't know why they wouldn't sell to a charter school. I too think that would be the best use for the buildings. Unfortunately, I live right across the street from the front door of one of the schools that is closing. In the short term, I see rough times ahead. Fortunately, the school is in a historic district and eligible for rehabilitation tax credits. It is also relatively small and very appropriate for condos. I have heard that it already has at least one developer sniffing around it. What steams me is that the SLPS sells them off and then new absentee owners sit on them and wait for surrounding real estate values to rise. Meanwhile the schools are vandalized, their architectural details are stolen, they are havens for criminal activity, they suffer water damage and pose a fire hazard. If anyone doubts this just look at Arlington (corner of Burd and Cote Brilliante). It has been owned by a group from Chicago since 2001. It is empty, open, vandalized, and houses vagrants/gives cover for criminal activity. A friend of mine was refused home-rehabilitation loans because of his proximity to another vacant school. Instead of anchoring neighborhoods the way open schools do, vacant schools destroy neighborhoods.

Charter schools give students other options in their neighborhood--if supported. I don't know why developers are allowed to sit on property, but it seems that opening a Charter in an abandoned school would be a pretty darn good use of resources. Arguably, you can't fare much worse than the unaccredited SLPS, and arguably any new development is better than vacant buildings--but I think moving Charters in to old buildings is worth some serious consideration. No one will want to move to an area if the neighborhood schools are providing the worst education in the state. Education, in my mind, is a precursor to real, sustainable economic development.

Will the moderator change the name of this thread's title so as not to reflect bias.



Buildings are always being reused for different purposes from which they were built; so, why are school buildings any different? Fortunately, St. Louis boasts great architectural gems that were once schools and could be tranformeold d into condos or apartments. Haven't the recent past school closings been successful for the district in that they have been transformed into housing?



With these older buildings finding new uses, future and more modern schools will be able to be constructed to more energy efficient, safety, health, and social atmosphere standards. Older suburban districts are already coming to grips with the fact that their schools are not going to keep pace with the future American educational system. Advances in technology, new classroom formating for better social learning environments, and better construction materials will yield all existing school buildings out-of-date. Yes, it is easier to build new than to over the course of many decades continually retrofit old buildings for what was not possible when they were built. So unless all families with children move to the urban fringe for the best school buildings, we should be glad to recycle old schools for new uses with the future possibility of building more modern buildings. Now the issue of urban design and urban context comes into play.

SMSPlanstu wrote:Will the moderator change the name of this thread's title so as not to reflect bias.



Buildings are always being reused for different purposes from which they were built; so, why are school buildings any different? Fortunately, St. Louis boasts great architectural gems that were once schools and could be tranformeold d into condos or apartments. Haven't the recent past school closings been successful for the district in that they have been transformed into housing?



With these older buildings finding new uses, future and more modern schools will be able to be constructed to more energy efficient, safety, health, and social atmosphere standards. Older suburban districts are already coming to grips with the fact that their schools are not going to keep pace with the future American educational system. Advances in technology, new classroom formating for better social learning environments, and better construction materials will yield all existing school buildings out-of-date. Yes, it is easier to build new than to over the course of many decades continually retrofit old buildings for what was not possible when they were built. So unless all families with children move to the urban fringe for the best school buildings, we should be glad to recycle old schools for new uses with the future possibility of building more modern buildings. Now the issue of urban design and urban context comes into play.

Most historic school buildings in St. Louis that have been de-commissioned have not been re-used at this point (unless you count use by vandals, thieves, and bums). I think that you are misunderstanding the title (hence the moderators ignored your request). I have no interest in debating the merits of charter schools, or insisting that old school buildings continue to be used as schools. I started this thread because I am concerned about the buildings themselves and their future. They are magnificent buildings and I hope that they will be re-used and continue to grace our neighborhoods for centuries to come. That is all.

The Soulard School is housed in an old city school. Alas, it's the former Humboldt Annex, built in the '50s.

Would that we could get a good price for the actual Humboldt School on 9th and Victor. I believe it's on the sale list.

I saw this article in the P-D this week: Vacant St. Louis schools ravaged by looters.

To summarize, there are a lot of former school buildings still owned/operated by SLPS that are currently vacant. They are tempting targets to vandals and theives, resulting "in millions of dollars in damage to the district's 44 vacant buildings."

A couple of passages jumped out at me:

St. Louis Public Schools has sold 17 buildings since 2005, according to records. But officials have held on to many of the vacant schools with hopes that, eventually, students would return and the district would need additional classrooms. That hope has been deferred as the district continues to lose students. Empty schools are proving to be a safety threat to surrounding neighborhoods.
...
This month, the district's Special Administrative Board will consider a plan to either rid the school system of many of these empty buildings or put them back into use. In 2009, the district lifted the deed restriction prohibiting the sale of its buildings to charter schools.

"We're really trying to be a good community partner in that we understand the frustration over closed schools in the community," said Melanie Adams, vice president of the board and no relation to the superintendent. "There are a variety of options on the table. Mostly, selling cheap."

Sounds like a plan. List them on the National Register, sell them to anyone with a credible plan for renovating/rehabilitating them, and move on.

I do question the security measures at the schools, though:

In the next few weeks, the school district will pay a contractor $21,000 to board up the 533 openings at the old Central, trying once again to secure it. The interior of the school presents a health hazard, with unsafe levels of asbestos and flakes of lead paint. To enter, school officials must wear hazmat suits.

Securing all of the vacant schools has been a problem. Chain-link fencing with razor wire is considered a liability and is not an option, CayCe said. At schools where copper wiring has been stolen, electricity cannot get to the building to power an alarm system. Attempts to board up doors and windows are often thwarted by thieves who simply remove the boards and enter the buildings. And putting a security guard at every school is considered cost-prohibitive.

Instead, the school district has a mobile security officer who drives past the buildings at night and a private security company that responds to any type of alarm.

I don't understand why chain-link fencing with razor wire is a liability. Don't private companies have these things up all the time? They seem to avoid being sued into oblivion. You might get sued a few times, but I have a hard time seeing too much come of those lawsuits. It's not like someone accidentally climbs a fence.

"Again, there are safety concerns," CayCe said. "You have a vacant building with children walking past. We have issues with that."

this is a pretty ridiculous statement - a lie actually. There are too many eyes on Hodgen as it's right next door to the new school, so it's not being looted/damaged. And it was renovated in the 90s so it's not going to collapse on the children as they walk by. and if that IS a concern - a falling brick or something - put up a damn fence don't raze the entire building. sure it needs work as it's probably seen little to no maintenance in 30 years, but the truth is they just want more convenient parking. if they implement this new plan to get the schools off of their hands then Hodgen would be a shoe-in for redevelopment as it's in much better shape than many of the other vacant ones. such a disgusting waste...

From the P-D: Slow going on city school sales:

Disposing of vacant St. Louis public schools is proving a tough sell.

With 20 school buildings on the market — none of which has sold — real estate experts say the culprits are the still-slow economy and uncertainty over some state tax credits.

The Gardenville School near me has been up for sale for a while. According to this http://www.hillikercorp.com/Property_Li ... tyType=STL it's only listed for 119,500. All of the other schools are going for around a million. Damn, for what I paid for my house I could have been living in a school. Of course, heating and cooling it for a year would probably cost the other 900k not in the sale price.

The price on the site is a typo. It should say $1,119,500. The brochure shows the correct price.

Funny the P-D article mentions the uncertainty of tax credits.

http://rustwire.com/2011/09/07/why-miss ... x-credits/

^My favorite from the list:

4. People are buying the neighborhood, not just the house. They want to be able to walk to a corner store, ride their bike, sit on a front porch. They want sidewalks and interesting architecture. They want places where people feel invested in the future. Places they can be proud of. Your historic neighborhoods are all those things. Developers don’t build neighborhoods like this anymore, so you’d better preserve the ones you have.