Demolishing St. Louis' Historic Schools

jcity · PostMar 11, 2009#12009-03-11T04:36+00:00

Cote Brilliante Elementary, 1903

2616 Cora Avenue

The Greater Ville

National Register: Eligible

Status: Recommended for closure; faces possible demolition for the construction of a new north side school

Someone PLEASE tell me why such an attractive and historic school building above should be demolished for a new school? Look at Vashon already, it looks 1) like a prison; as all new schools seem to follow the prision design 2) it already looks like crap.

These historic buildings can almost NEVER be recreated, save for places with 5 billion endowments like Wash U.. why would ANYONE advocate tearing such an impressive building down? It looks to be of the same vintage of Clayton's two elementary schools, and they seem to be doing just fine in historic buildings.

http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/st_lo ... c_schools/

flopoerich · PostMar 11, 2009#22009-03-11T04:40+00:00

Have you seen the inside of some of these schools? Don't get me wrong, I want these saved as much as you do, if not more. However, almost all are filled with lead paint, asbestos and bad wiring. Many have been destroyed by bums, juveniles, a**holes that have messed around the inside. Basically, the school would have to do an entire gut rehab just to get the building functional.

For some reason, schools like to have that "new building" thing to advertise with...

I absolutely love the old city schools and hope they will stay standing.

doug · PostMar 11, 2009#32009-03-11T11:45+00:00

Come to the SAB meeting on Thursday at Gateway, 1200 N. Jefferson.

By the way, not all the schools look like Carr School.

innov8ion · PostMar 11, 2009#42009-03-11T12:57+00:00

For the sake of our children's health, please save the asbestos-riddled schools!

urban_dilettante · PostMar 11, 2009#52009-03-11T22:23+00:00

innov8ion wrote:For our children's health, please save the asbestos-riddled schools!

wow. brilliant and snarky comment.

MattnSTL · PostMar 11, 2009#62009-03-11T22:26+00:00

Most schools were abated of lead paint in the 1980's. I'm not sure about asbestos abatement in the school, but as long as it is not disturbed, it is OK.

doug · PostMar 11, 2009#72009-03-11T22:30+00:00

New schools are pieces of sh*t.

innov8ion · PostMar 11, 2009#82009-03-11T23:00+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:Most schools were abated of lead paint in the 1980's. I'm not sure about asbestos abatement in the school, but as long as it is not disturbed, it is OK.

It's one thing to not disturb the asbestos. It's yet another as the asbestos ages and crumbles on its own accord. With that being said, these asbestos-riddled buildings still pose a risk to our children (and more to their teachers.) Especially since asbestos policies aren't likely to be managed correctly. Additionally, following policies don't necessarily guarantee results either. Diseases such as lung cancer, asbestosis (lung scarring), and mesothelioma have a latency period of appoximately 30 years upon first exposure. G-d doesn't roll dice -- people do.

Ref:

- http://www.mesotheliomatreatmentcenters ... s/schools/

- http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbest ... hools.html

jmstokes · PostMar 12, 2009#92009-03-12T01:34+00:00

innov8ion wrote:For the sake of our children's health, please save the asbestos-riddled schools!

Children can be replaced. These beautiful schools can't.*

*unless we can get 2 schools together in a nice dark room with some sexay music and such

innov8ion · PostMar 12, 2009#102009-03-12T01:38+00:00

^ That's exactly right. We can always make more kids. Once those buildings are destroyed, we can never have them back. It's good to see that Doug cares so much about the disenfranchised African-American buildings in North St. Louis.

stlcardsblues1989 · PostMar 12, 2009#112009-03-12T02:32+00:00

I'd like to save the schools. That said, safety is first.

If a school can be saved, and asbestos and lead removal can feasibly be done, then save the school. If the school cannot be cleaned up, then it can't be used anymore. I'm sure some can be saved. Grant School was saved. Harris Teachers College apparently was redeveloped also.

These schools were built so beautifully. I would like all to be saved, but I don't know if that's likely.

innov8ion · PostMar 12, 2009#122009-03-12T02:38+00:00

^ Sure, many of those schools are quite beautiful. But unlike some, I value the safety of their inhabitants much more.

stlcardsblues1989 · PostMar 12, 2009#132009-03-12T02:41+00:00

I do, too. If you can clean them up, you should do so. If they can't be cleaned up and made safe, then they have to go, even if it breaks your heart.

My Dad went to Blow School as a kid. I guess it's still in use?

MattnSTL · PostMar 12, 2009#142009-03-12T03:01+00:00

Blow school is still in use. Don't kid yourselves guys, all of these schools can have productive futures as both schools and new uses. They can be renovated for the same price as a new school and have a higher quality product in the end.

jcity · PostMar 12, 2009#152009-03-12T04:40+00:00

Innovation, I suppose we should tear down EVERY building built before the late 1970's, when they outlawed the use of asbestos. What an asinine concept. These buildings can easily be either abated, if they still have asbestos, or sealed, as MANY buidlings still are today. I personally think that whole thing was somewhat overblown, but that's another debate. Clayton, the states best public school district, uses TWO such "dangerous" historic school buildings to educate its students. Both are from the late 20's and early 30's. Look at Reed School in Ladue.. They are in perfect shape. and, yes, they have more money to keep them up, but look at Kennard Classical in the city, its in excellent shape too, ALL same vintage. I've been in many of these historic schools, including the Theresa School/H.Teachers College, which people wanted to be torn down because there was a small fire, that caused ZERO damage. These buildings will EASILY outlast Vashon or the other garbage that gets built today.

doug · PostMar 12, 2009#162009-03-12T12:31+00:00

Tearing down schools, which have been neighborhood anchors for 80 years or more, clearly equates to disenfranchisement. There's no reason to tear down buildings, especially ones which are eligible for historic tax credits.

Our SLPS buildings were the epitome for school construction, with their open floor plans, usage of lighting and ventilation, as well as architectural detail. Schools before were horrible and these have been the standard ever since. Unfortunately newer schools seem to be largely based off, as was said before, prison-like designs. I'm not sure if this is due to some idea of social control, but such an environment stymies education. I know because I attended school in such a building.

Obviously buildings like Carr School and Arlington School would be quite harder to rehab. These buildings do have water damage, asbestos and other materials all over the place, plants growing either on the roof or partially inside, while the roof of Carr has collapsed. But formerly occupied schools like Cleveland, or for example Mann School, could easily be rehabbed with proper initiative.

Even the more distressed schools could see reopening. Andrew Weil of Landmarks Association wrote extensively about Arlington School and efforts to rehab it. The proper attitude isn't to say these schools are automatically bad for education because of their physical state.

You live in a loft downtown right? I'm sure that wasn't optimized for residential occupancy 10 years ago.

jmstokes · PostMar 13, 2009#172009-03-13T03:30+00:00

This isn't just a St. Louis thing. My grandpa (class of 39), my dad (class of 63), and my brother (class of 2003) all went to Springfield High in Springfield, IL. It was built in roughly 1900.

They want to stop using it as a high school and build a new "campus" on farmland on the west side of town. Primary reason? There isn't enough parking at the existing building.

For some reason, people equate new buildings with good buildings...

innov8ion · PostMar 13, 2009#182009-03-13T03:38+00:00

JCity wrote:Innovation, I suppose we should tear down EVERY building built before the late 1970's, when they outlawed the use of asbestos. What an asinine concept. These buildings can easily be either abated, if they still have asbestos, or sealed, as MANY buidlings still are today. I personally think that whole thing was somewhat overblown, but that's another debate. Clayton, the states best public school district, uses TWO such "dangerous" historic school buildings to educate its students. Both are from the late 20's and early 30's. Look at Reed School in Ladue.. They are in perfect shape. and, yes, they have more money to keep them up, but look at Kennard Classical in the city, its in excellent shape too, ALL same vintage.

Perhaps that's the issue. Does the SLPS have the funds to abate these buildings as they should? Who is auditing this to ensure abatement is performed properly? If they can't get it done, they're endangering the lives of countless teachers and children. Meanwhile, you're more concerned about a building. Typical.

Doug wrote:You live in a loft downtown right? I'm sure that wasn't optimized for residential occupancy 10 years ago.

I'm not talking about adaptive reuse. I'm talking about lead and asbestos issues in schools which may adversely affect the health of countless teachers and children. There are no issues with lead or asbestos in my building.

MattnSTL · PostMar 13, 2009#192009-03-13T04:45+00:00

^Are you even sure there are lead and asbestos issues in the schools, or are you using that as a straw argument?

innov8ion · PostMar 13, 2009#202009-03-13T05:02+00:00

I think there should be official statements made. Lacking that, it would seem fair to be suspicious. Don't get me wrong -- I think the buildings are architectural gems. But how safe are they?

I think there is probably some good background information here: http://www.landmarks-stl.org/news/landm ... c_schools/

But the way I understand it, it may not be about lead/asbestos. Simply, the SLPS must run a more efficient ship and requires less schools. So what becomes of these former schools? Adaptive reuse would be preferable to the preservationists. Then you've got the construction people and union folks that want to tear them down to create new buildings.... Good luck.

MattnSTL · PostMar 13, 2009#212009-03-13T05:08+00:00

^Or the construction/union folks that know that historic rehab creates good jobs and pumps a lot of money into the local economy.

innov8ion · PostMar 13, 2009#222009-03-13T14:08+00:00

^ As much as creating a new building?

Alex Ihnen · PostMar 13, 2009#232009-03-13T14:12+00:00

^ Actually more. Assuming that building a new facility and rehabbing an old is roughly the same cost, much less material is used to rehab a building, the cost is in labor and possibly design/retrofitting. A large part of the cost of building a new building is in raw materials, steel, concrete, etc. that in general will not come from St. Louis. There's also the cost of transporting all of the material for a new building. Rehabs add much more to the local economy than new construction.

innov8ion · PostMar 13, 2009#242009-03-13T14:19+00:00

^ So exactly what groups want to tear the buildings down and why?

resurrectus · PostMar 14, 2009#252009-03-14T05:36+00:00

Here's a school in St. Louis that was converted into lofts:

KETC | Living St. Louis | St. Agnes Lofts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9RAQ9nRIFo

http://www.stlouislofts.com/2216sidney.html

http://www.beachfront-properties.com/portfolio_06.html