$15M for building demos in city bond issue

Given the number of un-rehabbable, abandoned buildings in our landscape, this number is probably about right.

No building is un-rehabbable.

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?

At some point, can we have a serious discussion about what's realistic?

Hyperbolic observations about things like 'every relic of a building being rehabbable' really don't add much to the discussion.

The hyperbole points out that un-rehabbable is an incorrect and misleading term.

Buildings may be abandoned and/or in disrepair, but not un-rehabbable. The only time a building becomes un-rehabbable is when the government (or private actor) decides to demolish it entirely. It's a subtle but important distinction. Old North has worked wonders structuring funding for, stabilising, and rehabilitating severely decrepit buildings. The recent Cupples demo was sold to the public as non-rehabbable. But that's a misleading way of presenting the issue - perhaps the funding or political will aren't present, but that doesn't mean rehab isn't possible. Even if a building is so-called un-rehabbable because of a lack of funding, that doesn't mean it couldn't be stabilised or otherwise mothballed, which brings up a separate debate between preservation (and the presents of abandoned but stabilised historical structures and possibility of redevelopment) or the outright demolition and resulting empty lots (and lower cost of new construction).

Saying that buildings are un-rehabble conceals the fact that a choice is being made of how resources are allocated. Let's see those pics of the 4th Ward.

Saying that buildings are un-rehabble conceals the fact that a choice is being made of how resources are allocated. Let's see those pics of the 4th Ward.

You're right. Choices are being made. They have to be made.

I can't find the right pictures online, but the buildings are out there. Plenty of them. Generally, they start out as victims of owner abandonment. Sit vacant for years and years. Water penetrates the building. LRA might take ownership, might not. The roof caves in.

Then a brick thief backs a pick up to the rear of the building. He wraps a chain around a door/window opening attached to the truck's trailer hitch and pulls forward, dragging down the back wall, leaving behind a big mess (money from the demo budget goes to these sorts of cases).

Often a side or front wall caves in. Either way, a full side of the building is exposed, revealing the interior rooms, often with furnishings still inside - a ghostly/ghastly scene to say the least. They're what Alderman Moore refers to as "dollhouses". But some are far worse than that.

They're literally unrecognizable. The bulk of the building is collapsed. The first and second floors have fallen into the basement. Rehab costs are astronomical - if you want to call that "rehab". It would be more "reconstruction". And cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, clearing away the debris and building a new building would be much more cost effective, especially in an area with market values struggling.

And, don't talk about Old North or Cupples. Different stories. Or Lafayette Square, where local residents take it upon themselves to protect every building.

Talk about places like the Ville, Hamilton Heights, sections of Hyde Park, College Hill, the West End. Visit the really sad buildings. The burned through ones. The caved in ones. The half fallen down ones. And then ask yourself, is this building rehabbable? Or does it need to be demolished/cleared?

This isn't a question of saying, "we can't save everything". It's a question of public safety, public health, establishing realistic priorities, strategic historic preservation, making smart choices, giving people what they want, and much more.

Throwing out blanket statements like "every building is rehabbable" does not take into account the long list of questions driving every "choice".

^ Well said

Northside Neighbor wrote:Throwing out blanket statements like "every building is rehabbable" does not take into account the long list of questions driving every "choice".

Actually, that's exactly what it does. Saying that buildings are "unrehabbable" doesn't take into account the long list of questions driving every "choice."

Northside Neighbor wrote:And, don't talk about Old North or Cupples. Different stories. Or Lafayette Square, where local residents take it upon themselves to protect every building.

Didn't realize there were rules to this debate. So, some of the best recent examples of stabilization, preservation, and redevelopment should be excluded from a debate about significant City funding for demos? Hmmmm, okay. Will that $15 million in demolition funds only be available for the Ville, Hamilton Heights, sections of Hyde Park, College Hill, and the West End? Or is this a city-wide issue?

fresh start with a clean slate is not always a bad way to go. when a cost of a rehab is the same amount as a demo+new construction...the building is unrehabable....see old Tin Can.

There clearly are no "rules", but there are facts. There is information. There is reality. And the facts cannot be escaped.

Comparing the work in Lafayette Square and Old North to what's happening in places like College Hill and Hamilton Heights - without comparing the data - is not an informed debate.

I get it. We all love historic rehab. We all love St. Louis. We wouldn't be debating these questions if we didn't.

I live in an historic home. I pay a fortune and work like crazy to maintain it. Doing so is a conscious choice to push against the force of entropy. It's a choice I make because I want to live in an urban, historic, city neighborhood.

And yes, absolutely. This clearly is a city-wide issue.

But you have to face the facts. Not every block is equal; not every neighborhood is equal; not every area needs the same help/strategy.

Things vary based on the data. And some of that data is staring you right in the face.

And sorry to say, but another fact driving the debate is that $$$ is limited and so are our choices. So we have to make smart ones.

Here's a question for you. Would you rather spend $10,000 stabilizing an abandoned LRA building in Gravois Park or Hamilton Heights?

I would say "Gravois Park", because that area has a better chance of preserving an intact historic area than Hamilton Heights which has already been depleted by so much decay.

A non-answer would be to say, "split the baby and spend $5,000 in each neighborhood". And if you know St. Louis history (not that ancient of history), you know that's sort of how things used to work, when every decision was made on a ward by ward basis. We all know how effective our old system was.

Time to turn the page.

If bond money is going to be used for demolitions of properties too far gone to rehab, there should be some rules. Like it can only be used to fund demolitions in wards that have oversight such as preservation review for instance. A blank check to demolish whatever suits your fancy is plain stupid. Or how about releasing a list of properties that are to be demolished using this money?

And to Northside Neighbor,
thanks for illustrating the attitude in North St Louis. I should not have to move from where I live to care about the ENTIRE City. Continuing to do what has not worked for decades will not yield any different results. You tend to argue for the sake of argument which is why I am reluctant to engage with you.

"You tend to argue for the sake of argument which is why I am reluctant to engage with you."

Lazy response. I think a more honest one would be that you disagree with me, so you don't want to engage the discussion. I believe I have put a lot of facts into this discussion. Are you refuting what I'm saying?

And to be fair, I agree with you when it comes to having a plan for how to prioritize demolitions. However, I don't think you know how dire the situation is.

LRA is so far behind on demolition that they only do demo the kind of wrecked buildings I am describing (let's leave Cupples out of this - besides, that wasn't an LRA building anyway, was it?).

So while it might not seem like it, LRA sort of does have a plan for how it prioritizes its demolitions. Basically it's based on condition and public safety. They only have a million a year to do demo, so it's really based on taking down the worst of the worst.

Some aldermen have long lists of buildings to be demolished. LRA works with them to take down the very worst off the list.

The process is not carried out with the sort of wanton disregard some here seem to think. Far from it.

What data are you talking about NN?

Things like cost of rehab, cost of demo, market values, rents, vacancy rates, availability of development incentives, crime related to vacant buildings, complaints about vacant buildings/problem properties, uncut weeds, rodent/wildlife infestations, public safety hazards, years' vacant, cost to maintain vs. demo, needed cost to stabilize, neighborhood plans, neighborhood goals, number of interested developers, local government priority, etc. I'm sure more data sets could be added.

Got it. I was kind of hoping you had some to share or somewhere to go (or hopefully the aldermen are going) to obtain and synthesize such data. Those are certainly all things to take into consideration though - some harder to quantify than others.

Is there a chance that the city could buy some equipment and do the necessary demo themselves? I feel like some city departments do quite a bit with the budget they have.

Most of the various data sets I mentioned are publicly available/well documented. The city planning department can generate pretty much all of this info.

And re. having city crews do more of this kind of thing themselves, I like that idea too. Maybe not a huge cost savings, but could create some interesting job training programs, etc.

We also should be thinking of creative ways to convert the vacancy into a resource.

There was a piece on the news this week about Southwest Airlines converting the old leather upholstery from their wornout airline seats into things like handbags and sandals.

I'm sure a lot could be done with the creative reuse of the remains of abandoned buildings - brick/stone sales, furniture manufacturing, art projects, etc, etc.

Any chance we can change the name of this topic? The bill that passed only includes $8 million for building demolition, (not $15M) and also includes $6 million for the long sought after building stabilization fund.

Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman

If this demo fund is meant to be an ongoing allocation, then I'd like to see the City form, in tandem, a brick bank for the buildings they demo. In that way, it can recoup some of the costs from citizens who wish to buy some of this old brick for their own projects, big and small. I, for instance, might purchase some to replace a leaning wood-frame alley garage at my grandma's southside home.

I know we've heard before that the cost of demo increases significantly if you try to preserve the brick, and that contractors already get to keep what they salvage to further reduce the City's cost, but I'd like to see the formula for those costs. If we can keep these pieces of our City in the City, rather than sold to somebody in Arizona for a patio in their back "yard", it's a benefit worth at least considering.

Northside Neighbor wrote:
And re. having city crews do more of this kind of thing themselves, I like that idea too. Maybe not a huge cost savings, but could create some interesting job training programs, etc.

We also should be thinking of creative ways to convert the vacancy into a resource.

There was a piece on the news this week about Southwest Airlines converting the old leather upholstery from their wornout airline seats into things like handbags and sandals.

I'm sure a lot could be done with the creative reuse of the remains of abandoned buildings - brick/stone sales, furniture manufacturing, art projects, etc, etc.

You know of any organizations that work with the city on this? I was thinking trade schools could offer hands on teaching to students and at the same time stabilize these buildings. If not trade schools then maybe some non-profit. At least they could do roof repairs and tuck-pointing, which are labor intensive and valuable skills.

You know of any organizations that work with the city on this?

Short answer is, yes. There are plenty. Ranken Tech comes to mind, but there are many smaller groups as well. The organizational fit really depends on the proposed work to be done. Ranken Tech wouldn't do art projects - but they might do furniture making and building stabilization/salvage. Just one example. Many groups could be defined.

And here's a challenge to consider. Thanks to Ald. Ogilivie for pointing out millions would be made available for building stabilization out of the proposed bond issue.

The challenge is this. For those wanting a detailed plan regarding how demolitions be done, an equal if not more strategic plan should be developed on how stabilization funds/projects be targeted.

I have thoughts on that side, too, but would rather hear what others have to say/add to the discussion. What do you think?

The worst thing to do would be to spend $10,000 stabilizing a building, only to see it demoed in five years. Liken that approach to the SLPS spending millions on A/C and new windows/roofs on buildings they then shuttered just a few years later!