St. Louis/MSD $3million demolition plan

goat314 · PostSep 18, 2010#12010-09-18T15:33+00:00

City partners with MSD to destroy dilapidated homes; build parks
by Maggie Crane

Posted on September 17, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Abandoned buildings that have been eyesores in many St. Louis neighborhoods are finally coming down.

The city just announced a partnership with the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD). It sounds like an unlikely pairing -- MSD footing the bill for building demolitions, but it's your money being put to work: $3 Million to tear down derelict buildings, and in their place, put mini parks. It's an opportunity to build for the future by reducing the amount of storm water crowding an aging system.

link: http://www.kmov.com/community/blogs/rep ... 85989.html

PostSep 18, 2010#22010-09-18T15:33+00:00

Replacing abandoned buildings with parks?

iceburg · PostSep 18, 2010#32010-09-18T15:54+00:00

Who will be maintaining these mini parks? The city certainly doesn't have the money to do so. Unless the immediate neighbors agree to upkeep the lots, they will just become overgrown and trash-strewn.

gone corporate · PostSep 18, 2010#42010-09-18T20:42+00:00

On one hand, it's a win-win. Residents proximate to these abandoned, unused homes want them gone (rats and roaches, too), and MSD needs to watch out for their aging infrastructure. What I'd prefer to see is the ability to replace the truly antiquated sewer system throughout the City, including those that allow the mixing of rainwater and sewage during storms, which eventually overflows into the Mississippi.

I'm wondering how much this is an impact to NorthSide Regeneration being denied its ability to build from the denial of its TIF, and through that losing the backbone of its funding for reconstruction. I remember supporting NorthSide partially based on its plans to rebuild sewage and stormwater infrastructure where it would be building.

It may be out of sight, but our piping infrastructure better not be out of mind.
Ever see vapor seep out of sidewalks or sreet cracks randomly in the City? That's what's causing it. Creepy.

doug · PostSep 18, 2010#52010-09-18T20:44+00:00

Some cities talk of green roofs in order to help with storm-water runoff while St. Louis demolishes buildings for "parks," which really means more urban prairie. If there isn't funding for "$10,000" demolitions, then I wonder where we will have this money for new parks?

What a complete disappointment. Why didn't MSD partner to help get some green standards on new and existing construction instead of demolishing buildings due to the LRA's mismanagement?

Framing demolition as a way to increase environmental sustainability happens to be a great example of doublespeak. Ignoring embodied energy within these buildings, absent green standards new construction elsewhere only puts further strains on the sewer system. We are not going to replace the sewer system and that shouldn't even be the answer. It would be better if we promoted conservation and reduced consumption. This can happen with reforms in the built environment. They don't include demolition, however. The amount of runoff from scattered buildings in a depopulated area happens to be quite lower than a dense downtown of concrete, where water usually has no option to penetrate thus ends up in the sewer. These demolition areas already have a lot of green space where houses used to be! How much rain which falls on the roofs of these buildings actually ends up in the sewer system rather than the vacant lot next door?

If MSD really wanted to address their problems then they would work for changes in building codes downtown and Clayton.

Do reporters have any common sense?

ben1040 · PostSep 18, 2010#62010-09-18T21:52+00:00

Doug wrote:We are not going to replace the sewer system and that shouldn't even be the answer.

Fixing the sewer system is the answer; tearing down buildings to reduce impervious space, not so much.

Our sewer system dumps raw sewage into public waterways when it rains. This is not due to overconsumption. This is by design, and it was designed at a time when nobody cared about what you dumped in the river and people thought having an open sewer in Forest Park was a good idea.

dredger · PostSep 19, 2010#72010-09-19T06:12+00:00

I think you have to do both, MSD under the short term is already mandated by EPA and the state to eliminate sewage overflow due to its old antiquated combination storm water/sewer system (where storm water pipes ran to sewer pipes that create raw sewage overflows after every major rain event). Eliminating sewage overflow should be the priority and if it takes some pipes to seperate the two then it takes pipes.

At the same time, Doug I think is getting to a good point. The future in managing storm water has to get beyond the use of pipes. While it served its purpose, using a pipe is the same century old engineering that hasn't fundametally change.