Penrose Park House Saved….Maybe?
Last night the Preservation Board told the city’s Board of Public Service they could not raze a house on the corner of the Penrose Park. That is not exactly true, they cannot deny a permit but can only recommend. The Board of Public Service may well go ahead and raze the structure.
From the Cultural Resources report:
The building is an Arts and Crafts red brick structure constructed by a private owner in 1902. It was acquired by City ordinance in 1905 when the City created Penrose Park and was used as a Park Keeper’s House until the late 1980’s when it was abandoned as a residential use and boarded by the City.
Yes, eminent domain was alive and well in 1905 when the city took a man’s 3-year old home away from him. Park Keeper’s houses really don’t work today given how park maintenance is handled. However, these structures are making a comeback as local community offices, arts centers and other uses convenient to a park.
Granted, the city does not have the funds to renovate the structure. I suggested last night they use the demolition funds to mothball the building until a use can be found. This beautifully proportioned house could be a major asset to Penrose Park in the future.
The city is in the process of realigning Kingshighway on the edge of the park and moving a smaller park road to the east of this house. Neither road is blocked if the house remains. The only issue is a natural amphitheater that is planned for the site. The Board of Public Service presented no details on the exact size of the proposed earthen amphitheater nor why it could not be located adjacent to the house.
A Friends of Penrose Park needs to be formed to help secure the structure and find a new use. This may well bring new life, energy and pride to this park. I can also see the cyclists that use the recently repaved velodrome in the park helping with the effort, perhaps as a meeting place for their functions? This building is worth saving for our future generations.
For more info see the Preservation Board agenda. Also, read Michael Allen’s excellent essay on this building.
– Steve
I see bigger battles worth fighting . . . old doesn’t mean historic, and there are likely better ways to spend scare city and parks resources . . .
[REPLY Bringing people together for a common goal of taking pride in their local park shouldn’t be a “battle.” Our buildings are very much an asset and I don’t think we should be using scarce funds to destroy an asset to build a recessed grassy area. – SLP]
“Old doesn’t mean historic”.
According to Webster’s, “historic” means, famous in history.
History means: TALE, STORY.
Aren’t old buildings part of the story of St. Louis?
How can you tell the story of St. Louis without the context of its building stock?
Sounds like Jim is making the case for mass demolitions.
No, I’m making a case for the wise use of limited public resources. There seems to be a standard response regarding anything old to try and save it. Not everything old can or should be saved. To justify saving this house requires identifying a need and a use. It looks to be in poor shape and not much different architecturally than many other houses up the block. It ain’t all that special!
Parks are primarily about green space for passive uses and recreation. Dedicating park land to dedicated, non-park uses is contrary to the concept of shared public land. Plus, the parks department can barely keep up with the maintenance needs on the soft, green stuff. Adding a run-down, hard-to-secure, structural assest to their maintenance inventory is not a wise use of either their staff or resources.
If there’s a need or a real use for the structure, sure, try and save it – just have that use help pay for the renovation and maintenance. Otherwise, this park would be better off without it . . .
And no, I’m not in favor of wholesale demolition. We rail against private property owners not keeping up their property, driving down property values. The city needs to be held to the same (if not a higher) standard. I’m just a pragmatist. This is an old HOUSE. It’s not a landmark public structure. It sits on a prime piece of public real estate and the public can’t use it. If the city wants to give it to somebody for $1, on the condition that they relocate it, fine, I have no problem. But to board it up, hope that it stays secure, doesn’t burn or fall down, and a use and funding will suddenly appear in the next twenty years, is both foolhardy and wishful thinking. The city won’t sell or lease it to a for-profit operation, and a non-profit or a city agency can find many better places to spend their limited budgets. Would it be a loss? Yes, any demolition is. But in this case, it would be a small one, and one that would be more than offset by the gains in making the park more accessible to the public!
[REPLY – Jim I think you are missing part of the equation. Simply because I was unable to present a verifiable use and financing package to the Preservation Board on a month’s notice I don’t think that is a reason to raze this structure.
What is the rush? Can we not take the funds that would be used to raze and clear the structure and use those to better secure the property, which is considered in very sound condition, and hold it while we gather some interested parties. Just because we cannot see a use for something immediately does not mean we should just trash it. How wasteful.
And sorry, this house is quite unit in its design. Sure, it is a modest house but the detailing is quite original. I’m not going to call it historic but I can certainly visualize it being a nice entrance marker to Penrose Park. – SLP]
PS – The real loss is that the City let the house sit vacant and decaying for twenty years . . . the city’s inaction (or actions) sealed the property’s fate by making it economically infeasible to reuse the property . . . sounds like a slumlord’s way to get around historic preservation!
It is a rather unique structure, even in the wealth of brick housing in St. Louis. It’s a shame that no one is interested in finding a good use for it . . . something like the South City Open Studio and Gallery for Children at Tower Grove? or a nice little cafe? or even a bike shop? any entrepeneurs out there?
Comparing Tower Grove Park and Tower Grove South with Penrose is quite a stretch.
^
Perhaps we won’t have to stretch so far if we keep the park house to give Penrose a beautiful focal point.
as a child I grew up in this home my stepfather worked for the city of S.louis every time I pass by I remember the good times we had as a family. We were the first african americans to live there. although all my family is deceast. This sill standing gives me great joy! I wsh I could purchase it and retore it.