Northside Neighbor wrote:Maybe...just so long as money is no obstacle? I don't know about you, but for most us, it is.
No building is un-rehabbable.
Maybe a few pictures of the "dollhouses" in the 4th Ward would help illustrate the point?
Here are some:
2919 Salena St.
1418 Hebert St.
1227 North Market St.
2601 North 14th St.
1926 Chouteau Ave.
4145 Chouteau Ave.
1925 South 10th St.
These buildings are clearly unrehabable; some of them surrounded by little but waste. Surely the best thing to do is to take them down before someone gets hurt.
So do I. There are plenty of examples of substantially dilapidated buildings being renovated. My favorite is the Eads house on Chouteau in Lafayette Square.
The examples pictured in Old North are excellent. The project was a nationally recognized herculean effort.
But those examples on their face don't disprove or prove anything. Unless you say, "some things work", everything has to be analyzed on a case by case basis.
Relocate the Eads building to Hamilton Heights and what do you get?
Relocate the N. 14th Street Mall redevelopment to East St. Louis and what do you get?
So because a neighborhood invests in itself less, or garners less outside attention and investment, or is simply further gone (not that you can get much further gone than the photos RBB posted) demolition is more justifiable?
Not only is that a defeatist perspective, but it's also self-fulfilling. Using your logic, fifteen years ago you could have said, "What if that Soulard building were in ONSL? No one would care about it, no one would save it, it's better off being torn down for safety and aesthetic purposes." But today, buildings are being saved left in right in ONSL (and Hyde Park to a lesser extent). Had they been demo'd there'd be nothing left to bring back, and there would almost certainly have been less investment and revitalisation brought to the area.
If you want to guaranty that Hamilton Heights (for example) is not the next Old North or even Lafayette Square (and why shouldn't it be? beautiful historic homes, close to Wellston Metrolink, close to the Loop Trolley, with Greenway trails nearby) a good way to do that would be to accelerate demolition by 15x. Fortunately, it looks like we're now looking at only 8x.
Northside Neighbor wrote:So do I. There are plenty of examples of substantially dilapidated buildings being renovated. My favorite is the Eads house on Chouteau in Lafayette Square.
The examples pictured in Old North are excellent. The project was a nationally recognized herculean effort.
But those examples on their face don't disprove or prove anything. Unless you say, "some things work", everything has to be analyzed on a case by case basis.
Relocate the Eads building to Hamilton Heights and what do you get?
Relocate the N. 14th Street Mall redevelopment to East St. Louis and what do you get?
Of course things need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and some demolition will likely be continue to be necessary in some cases. There's far too much that's far too gone; it's just not possible to save it all.
But what you said:
Northside Neighbor wrote:Given the number of un-rehabbable, abandoned buildings in our landscape, this number is probably about right.
IMO had you left out "un-rehabbable" you'd have had a more defensible statement. Wabash's response that no building is un-rehabbable sprung from that, and thus began the running of the goal posts.
IMO the Wellston loop section of MLK in Hamilton Heights in particular holds much, if not all of the promise of the 14th St Mall. It doesn't have an anchor like Crown Candy, but many (not all) of the buildings are in better shape, though there are certainly more holes to fill in. Coincidentally I believe the demolition that's already occurred there certainly makes the loop as a whole less amenable to a ONSL-style rehab.
So right about now I think the question ought to be "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
You guys accuse me of just wanting to debate, but some of the things posited here are just rhetorical.
30 years ago Old North had the Old North St. Louis Restoration Group; Lafayette Square had the Lafayette Square Restoration Committee. Back then (LSRC still is if I'm not mistaken) these were all-volunteer, resident-driven, community organizations focused on, among other things, historic preservation.
So the fact that Hamilton Heights/Wellston Loop doesn't have a formal, neighborhood redevelopment group (in addition to their Neighborhood Organization) means that they have a heightened want or need for demolition?
Northside Neighbor wrote:So right about now I think the question ought to be "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
You guys accuse me of just wanting to debate, but some of the things posited here are just rhetorical.
20 years ago Old North had the Old North St. Louis Restoration Group; Lafayette Square had the Lafayette Square Restoration Committee. Back then these were all-volunteer, resident-driven, community organizations focused on, among other things, historic preservation.
That right there differentiates hugely these areas from Hamilton Heights/Wellston Loop.
I don't know what "running the goal posts" means. What I do know is that time marches on.
"running of the goalposts" wasn't aimed at you specifically; the moving of the goalposts (meaning arguing a different point than was originally proposed) kinda happened organically in the thread, as online discussions are wont to do.
^ The neighborhood organization observation is a salient one, I think. Both Lafayette and the 14th St Mall were in terrible shape and considered undesirable 'slums' before a small party of interested ones took it upon themselves to make things happen in the face of long odds. What are the odds someone (either from in the neighborhood or from elsewhere in the region) would spearhead something like someplace like the Wellston loop?
The neighborhood organization observation is a salient one, I think
Ya think? Engaged neighborhood groups is "maybe" a salient point. Maybe? It's maybe the biggest thing.
So much of the passionate preservation movement is about our wondrous "built environment", with way too little acknowledgement of the pivotal role of the people involved. And their choices.
Forget the buildings. Prioritize the people.
Favorite cases of Old North, Lafayette Square, the CWE, Soulard, Shaw, etc. were people driven.
The buildings without the people are nothing. And that's really the cause of demolition. No people to save them.
The neighborhood organization observation is a salient one, I think
Ya think? Engaged neighborhood groups is "maybe" a salient point. Maybe? It's maybe the biggest thing.
So much of the passionate preservation movement is about our wondrous "built environment", with way too little acknowledgement of the pivotal role of the people involved. And their choices.
Forget the buildings. Prioritize the people.
Favorite cases of Old North, Lafayette Square, the CWE, Soulard, Shaw, etc. were people driven.
The buildings without the people are nothing. And that's really the cause of demolition. No people to save them.
Now you're "definitely" attributing words to me that I didn't say. I'm agreeing with your point, sir. No maybe about it.
sa·li·ent
ˈsālyənt/Submit
adjective
1.
most noticeable or important.
wabash wrote:So the fact that Hamilton Heights/Wellston Loop doesn't have a formal, neighborhood redevelopment group (in addition to their Neighborhood Organization) means that they have a heightened want or need for demolition?
I think demolition is the easy thing to do; A building is abandoned and damaged, then tear it down so we don't have to look at it or worry about it being a health threat or a harbor for homeless/drug users/criminals. It's a short-sighted view to a preservationist, but it's quite common and not just in St. Louis.
It takes someone (or a group of someones) determined to say 'No, there's a better way. This is worth the extra effort to save these buildings and here's why'.
It takes someone (or a group of someones) determined to say 'No, there's a better way. This is worth the extra effort to save these buildings and here's why'.
Have to differ with one thing in the above observation. We need more than a group of someones determined to "say" things. There needs to be a group of someones determined to "do" things.
Do things in terms of putting time and money into buildings. Everybody says all kinds of things. Far fewer put their money where their mouth is.
Buildings slated for demolition haven't had anyone "do" anything with them for years. If someone was, then they wouldn't be getting demolished today.
And this isn't a chicken or egg thing. It's more a "chickens have come home to roost" thing.
Northside Neighbor wrote:The buildings without the people are nothing.
I think this is one point on which we just fundamentally disagree. I think that buildings without people are in fact something. And something that is generally worth not actively pursuing the complete destruction of. Glad to hear there are $6 million proposed for a stabilization fund to at least approach a counterbalancing of the resources flowing toward demo.
Of course 'people' are necessary. The key is identifying people who believe that paying money to stabilize and preserve an abandoned building (or an entire neighborhood of buildings) is better than letting them rot on their own or falling prey to brick rustlers. And those people being influential enough to rustle up the money to make that happen.
Apparently some of those people are on the board of Aldermen. Happy to see moneys devoted to stabilization. How is it decided how that money is to be spent?
Nuance is a good thing. It suggests a deeper understanding/greater meaning. And St. Louis is a highly nuanced place. That's one of my favorite things about it and why I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
To your second point, I don't think anyone knows right now how the stabilization fund will work. However, since the fund is being generated by the City of St. Louis and its elected officials (from increased taxes on city residents), expect a highly regulated/bureaucratic system. That's just the nature of dealing with public money.
One way to possibly streamline the process would be to have a private organization contract with the city to manage the stabilization program. It would still be heavily regulated, but at least there would be private management. But that doesn't answer the myriad of questions of how to design the system. Nuance enters again.
More money north? More money south? More money to stable/borderline/transitional areas? More money to bottoming out, highly distressed areas? How much money per project? Classify a large project fund (Cupples?) and small project fund (an LRA single family house targeted by the planning department for redevelopment?)
Combine the funding with other funding on shovel ready redevelopment proposals as a source of subsidy/targeted incentive? Or stabilize for long term hold? Create a receiver function, and use on derelict private properties as part of eminent domain/code enforcement action, or only use on publicly owned deteriorating buildings? Only use in federal historic districts to leverage other incentives? There are a million possible variations on how to address this challenge.
Talk about making sausage. This will be an amazing challenge.
^ Definitely a lot to work through.... I think in general it should be targeted at home rehabs, perhaps coupled with LRA properties.
And here is an excellent video btw of a new Detroit growing out of the old and the challenges and promise of reclaiming abandoned homes that I think could apply just as easily to the STL...
Tremendous challenges remain of course and downtown (and Gilbert) gets most of the attention, but there are some really interesting things going on in the neighborhoods as well.
And here is an excellent video btw of a new Detroit growing out of the old and the challenges and promise of reclaiming abandoned homes that I think could apply just as easily to the STL...
That video sort is the sort of the story of St. Louis: abandoned schools for sale, abandoned buildings going to tax sale, old people basically turning over the keys of their tired properties to anyone willing to pay a nominal purchase price.
The most salient point of the video - apart from the enterprising young man willing to take on projects like these - was the professor/urbanologist person making the same point we've been discussing here: the need for people of good will to turn neighborhoods around.
It's not the buildings - there are plenty of those. It's about people and their choices.
Abandoned buildings are like animals in shelters waiting to be adopted. They all could make great pets, but someone has to choose to adopt them. And if not adopted, their fates are sealed. No different from a vacant and abandoned building.
Have you adopted a shelter pet? If so, maybe you're the kind of person ready to take on a housing reclamation effort. Or did you pay $1,000 for that pedigreed Brioche Frise? Maybe you're better suited for something new, pristine, and unblemished out in Chesterfield!
