Demo permits pulled for the buildings mentioned above.

NextSTL - Demo Alert: 4534-56 Manchester

https://nextstl.com/2021/09/demo-alert- ... anchester/

quincunx wrote: ↑

Sep 21, 2021

Demo permits pulled for the buildings mentioned above.

NextSTL - Demo Alert: 4534-56 Manchester

https://nextstl.com/2021/09/demo-alert- ... anchester/

Fwiw, these are the condemnation records I found for the properties.  All had demolition applications submitted and approved on 9/14/2021.  They're not in a historic district, but they do fall within a preservation review district (per Ord 66609).  Since any "demolition application in a Preservation Review District will be referred by the Building Division to the Cultural Resources Office for review" and no "demolition permit may be issued without the approval of the Office" (per CRO), either they did get reviewed and approved by CRO or someone really dropped the ball in approving them same day.

4534 Manchester - only condemnation record was from 2010, was occupancy only and was lifted at some point after issuance. 
4538 Manchester - no condemnation record at all
4540 Manchester on 12/18/2018 for structural issues
4542 Manchester - empty lot owned by LRA
4544 Manchester on 1/4/19 for structural issues (fire damage)
4552 Manchester - only condemnation record was for a board up in 2010
4556 Manchester on 9/12/2017 for structural issues

As we learned in the 1900 Olive debacle, you'll see the demo permit issued even though it hasn't been reviewed by CRO yet.

Is there anything that can be done about this? They didn't appear to be far along on demo when I drove by a few days ago.

You can speak before the Preservation Board, if the director doesn't approve them like the last one did with 1900 Olive.

Doesn't look like they've done much anything beside cut down trees since Oct 3.

^If these make it before the board I will be well content. But I'm curious what can be done if the director does or did sign off without board review.

Probably not much as we learned in the 1900 Olive debacle. Let the alderwoman know your thoughts, I guess.

^Speaking of the 4200 block of Arco, have there been any updates about the Arbor on Arco since the last iteration got shot down? It was supposed to stretch from 4215-4239 Arco (version 1) or 4211-4239 (version 2).

rbeedee wrote: ↑

Nov 17, 2021

^Speaking of the 4200 block of Arco, have there been any updates about the Arbor on Arco since the last iteration got shot down? It was supposed to stretch from 4215-4239 Arco (version 1) or 4211-4239 (version 2).

I think the anecdotal attitude toward it is that we won't see anything at least until 4440 Manchester is done and stabilized. It seems to be crawling to completion, but its retail space has started to be marketed, which is a good sign. 

I have no issues with taking these down if there is a plan to replace with new dense residential construction. I envision a solid street wall all the way to Kingshighway.  The setback of the existing buildings does not compliment the urban feel on the rest of Manchester east of Kingshighway.  Is there any buzz on what would replace these homes? 

quincunx wrote: ↑

Nov 09, 2021

Meeting on the Narwhal's November 17, 2021 6:30 pm

https://www.forestparksoutheast.com/com ... -triangle/#

How did the meeting go?

Anyone know what the plan is behind this big demo request on the latest preservation board agenda?
Addresses: MANCHESTER AVENUE (4534, 4538, 4540, 4544, 4552, 4556)
Project Description: Demolitions of 6 Residential Structures
Jurisdiction: Preservation Review Area/Ward 17
Neighborhood: Forest Park Southeast
Owner: Groveland LLC, Austin Barzantny
Applicant: Bellon Salvage, Donald Bellon
Assigned CRO Staff: Meg Lousteau

I would think so

Looks like grove properties slowly buying up those buildings as investments the last several years, on the city property records.

Probably just left to sit, never cited for code violations, waiting for them to rot to flip over to a developer for a 5+1 or something.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2021

Looks like grove properties slowly buying up those buildings as investments the last several years, on the city property records.

Probably just left to sit, never cited for code violations, waiting for them to rot to flip over to a developer for a 5+1 or something.

Perhaps. Although I'm pretty sure Austin Barzatny was behind the 4101 Laclede (& N Boyle) condo project. So it's possible they're cooking something up in-house as opposed to selling it to a developer.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Dec 11, 2021

Looks like grove properties slowly buying up those buildings as investments the last several years, on the city property records.

Probably just left to sit, never cited for code violations, waiting for them to rot to flip over to a developer for a 5+1 or something.

A lot were already condemned - not sure if code violations still are given if a building is boarded up?  I posted this a few pages ago, but seems relevant:

Fwiw, these are the condemnation records I found for the properties.  All had demolition applications submitted and approved on 9/14/2021.  They're not in a historic district, but they do fall within a preservation review district (per Ord 66609).  Since any "demolition application in a Preservation Review District will be referred by the Building Division to the Cultural Resources Office for review" and no "demolition permit may be issued without the approval of the Office" (per CRO), either they did get reviewed and approved by CRO or someone really dropped the ball in approving them same day.

4534 Manchester - only condemnation record was from 2010, was occupancy only and was lifted at some point after issuance. 
4538 Manchester - no condemnation record at all
4540 Manchester on 12/18/2018 for structural issues
4542 Manchester - empty lot owned by LRA
4544 Manchester on 1/4/19 for structural issues (fire damage)
4552 Manchester - only condemnation record was for a board up in 2010
4556 Manchester on 9/12/2017 for structural issues

I'd like to think that when @STLrainbow tweeted out the photos of the equipment on site, someone contacted the CRO or PB to ask what the heck was going on with the quick demo approvals. And they realized that it shouldn't have been approved same day / someone rubber stamped it by accident. No clue what led to this actually getting delayed to the point that CRO denied it, but doesn't feel like this is a situation where there's a backroom deal brewing. Feels more like a situation where a wrong initial decision somewhere is now being correctly reviewed.