Understanding the Various Types of Historic/Preservation Districts in St. Louis
The City of St. Louis over the years has created different legal districts to help maintain and sustain the older building stock in the city, arguably the best asset of the city is the building stock. A close second is what is left of our gridded street pattern.
These districts fall into several types; the National Register District, the Local Historic district, and the Preservation Review area. Anything not in one or more of these districts is basically a demolition buffet, otherwise known as the 18th Ward. To be fair, other wards are also demolition buffets but unfortunately it is not easy to find where that is the case which is part of my point I will hope to make in this post.
These districts are not to be confused with individual buildings which may be a National Register site or a city landmark. Districts include multiple buildings that often individually are not a ‘landmark’ but collectively make up a nice collection of buildings.
National Register Districts
These districts are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Listing on the national register does not, I repeat does not, protect the buildings from demolition nor does it mandate any specific standards for rehab. A building within a national register historic district, however, can be eligible for state and federal tax credits if rehabbed as required by some very strict historic standards. You can buy, rehab and sell buildings in a national register district all the time without dealing with standards — it is only if you want to get tax credits must you obey the guidelines.
This is a good place to note that many buildings are located within both a national district and a local district, which I will explain in a bit. Thus, just because you are in a national district does not mean you are not also in a local district. Click here to see a listing of the national districts in St. Louis.
Local Historic Districts
The local districts, unlike national districts, come with rehab standards and some protections from demolition. If I am not mistaken, the state of Missouri also recognizes local districts and qualifying projects within these local districts can receive state historic tax credits. NOTE: If you are undertaking a major rehab project and seek to obtain tax credits it is highly advisable to obtain a qualified consultant experienced in preparing and submitting tax credit applications. A good source of help is the Rehabber’s Club at rehabbersclub.org.
As indicated above, a property might be in both a local district and a national district. It might also be located only in a local district. Buyers must be aware of these differences when property shopping — I will show you how to check later in this post. Click here to see a list of local historic districts.
But what about those properties in neither a local or national district?
Preservation Review Areas
It is probably safe to say the bulk of residential, multi-family and small commercial buildings within the City of St. Louis are located not in local or national districts but simply in a review district. The intent here is to avert the demolition of what are known in the lingo as “contributing” buildings — those which contribute to the historic character of the city.
When a person seeks a demolition permit down at city hall the staff checks to see where the building is located, if it is a main structure (say a house rather than a shed) the application is forwarded to the Cultural Resources staff to determine if the building is one of those that is “contributing” or not. If the building is not of merit and therefore not contributing, they may administratively approve the demo request and you can let the wrecking ball begin. However, if the building is contributing they will usually deny the application. This “staff denial” can then be appealed so that your appeal is heard by the members of the Preservtion Board.
I’m becoming increasingly libertarian but this process does have value. Many people who chose to buy homes in the city do so because they love the old buildings. The collection of buildings on private land adds collectively to the community. As such, we don’t necessarily want people tearing down that which makes up the character of a street or neighborhood — such action might have a negative impact on our own private property. Sometimes demolition makes sense, sometimes it does not — that is the idea behind having the Preservation Board hear appeals.
No District at all
Properties that are not located in a district are easily razed, a shame really. Many fine buildings are routinely destroyed forever because the owner is not sure they have other options. We have an excessive amount of vacant land in this city as a result of disinvestment and demolition.
Due Diligence, Buyer Beware, yadda yadda yadda
When purchasing real estate is it important for the buyer to ensure they are allowed to do what they intend with the property before finalizing the sale. Say you want to buy a place to live — that is pretty much a no brainer. You do need to check on occupancy requirements which can vary wildly from municipality to municipality. Now lets say you want to buy a place to live with your extended family of 12 people. If that is your intention, do not assume you will be able to do so just anywhere. Same if you live alone with your 25 cats and dogs — do not assume that will be allowed as it most likely will not be.
Similarly, if you are buying a place and wish to open a brothel you need to check local laws to see if that is permitted. OK, that is an extreme example but say a place was a bar at one time does not mean you can open a new bar in that building. I’m not making judgments here about what is allowed and not, I’m just saying you must know that what you want to do with property is allowed — too many people make very costly assumptions.
Your real estate agent may or may not be aware of the differences in districts or in some cases not even know they exist at all. Many REALTORS®, including myself, have daily working knowledge of the various types of districts and differences in requirements. But say you hire me to help you find a property to rehab and get historic tax credits, it is still your responsibility to doubt your professionals and verify for yourself that you can do what you want to do. When doing into the business of development, you must double and triple check the facts. You must be fully aware of what you are buying before the deal is finalized.
In the case of the little house on Tennessee, the buyer closed on the property earlier this year. The listing agent suggested new houses be built and in remarks in the listing to agents only indicated the house was a tear down. The agent representing the buyer (and current owner) was not aware the house could not be razed, despite professing to working extensively in the 63111 zip code and living in Benton Park West. This group did not exercise proper due diligence.
How do I know?
Determining if a property is within one of these districts is actually quite easy. The first thing you want to do is go to GEO St. Louis. This is a “guide to geospacial data about the City of St. Louis.” That is really a fancy way of saying it is a database that can be mapped. Here is a screen shot of the main page:
Above is the main page. This is a very powerful site with access to considerable information about each and every property in the city of St. Louis. You can’t break it so I suggest you spend some time looking around. For now, we are going to look up a specific property. In the left hand side is a heading labeled “Common Items” with the first being parcel data by address.
From there we can type in the address of interest. I also use this for bills by the Board of Aldermen that reference property in a certain city block but not the street address.
Again, this is a very powerful site but above is some of the most helpful basics which you will find on the first page your search brings up. I looked up 4722 Tennessee — the property the owner purchased earlier this year thinking they could raze the exisitng 19th century house. Had they, or their real estate agent, checked this free public website they would have seen it is not in a historic district but it is in a “Preservation Review Area.” To repeat, this is public information and it has been made very accessible to the public as long as you have an internet connection. If you are buying or selling real estate in the city of St. Louis check this site to learn more about the property!
As an example, I listed and sold a house last year where the recorder had mistakenly mixed up the ownership of my clients house with the one next door — something I spotted by checking these records so that by the time we had the house sold the mistake had been corrected.
If you run across a property that is not in either a historic district or a review area you are likely looking at a property in one of the wards that is not protected from wholesale destruction, such as Terry Kennedy’s 18th ward. The city has a disclaimer on the GEO site which is supposed to read the information is not guaranteed (it appears to be poorly phrased). I suggest you verify this information if you have thoughts of demolition, plans for major rehab or simply a ‘keep your laws off my property’ attitude.
In the above grahic from the GEO site you will also see a section for Housing Conservation District — this is basically the areas in which a very simple form of occupancy is required (although the city says they do not have any occupancy requirements). Click here for more information on Housing Conservation Districts.
If you buy property expecting to do something with it don’t look for sympathy if you find out you cannot, but that you could have easily checked before finalizing the deal. Buying a property to redevelop without making sure you can raze the structure or making the contract contingent upon necessary government approvals is just downright foolish. If you expect to be a developer you’ve gotta know what you are doing and have the right professionals helping you along the way. If necessary, have professionals checking the professionals.
I have no problem with willing participants banding together to protect the integrity of their neighborhoods. I have no problem with designating individual structures as historic. I have no problem identifying individual neighborhoods as having historic charcteristics and identifying what makes them special. I do have a problem with the “enlightened” members of a neighborhood having too much power, including this type of power, especially when combined with the law of unintended consequences. Sure, you can (apparently) say, no, you can never tear down this structure. The reality is, if the owner’s motivated, it gonna go away, one way or another, sooner, or, more likely, later. There’s deferred maintenance, the tenants from hell, even Benny the Torch. St. Louis has way too many properties that are in various stages of deterioration, boarded up or not, awiting some uncertain future reuse or fate. Their sorry state IS a big drag on nearby renovation efforts (if any), and like they say, you only have one chance to make a good first impression! If you want to have the ability to delay demolition for 6-12 months, in hopes of finding a buyer willing “to see the light”, fine. But to put private property in perpetual limbo is way overstepping the police powers delegated to the government.
I have a hard time seeing the worth in creating local historic districts. Sure, in a place like Soulard or Lafayette Square, things have worked out well. But look at the Ville. What good has come from that local district?
Having the national district gets you all the carrot and none of the stick. Understanding that most minor modofications (new roof, exterior doors, paint, and windows) seldom if ever result in earning any tax credits, local district designations seems to be all stick and no carrot.
Driving up costs for maintenance and repairs is an indirect way to discourage lower income people from select neighborhoods.
As someone getting ready to move to a sunbelt city for work, I will immediately miss the unique built environment of my hometown.
St. Louis will always have humidity, parochialism, and modest topography. But unless we protect our unique mass of “old urbanism” found in numerous neighborhoods, St. Louis may not always be “The Place to Be.”
Terry doesn’t want his Ward under Preservation because the other members of the board obviously wouldn’t approve of his governance. He also doesn’t want it in a local district because of the requirements, but as he knows, the Cultural Resource Office may give staff variances to those who meet the requirements. I believe it is some sort of income burden, yet also dependent on the given local districts ordinance. Moreover, also with these building requirements comes the possibility for tax credits. So the argument that local districts place a financial burden upon local residents seems to be moot. Perhaps aldermen who face opposition from neighborhood associations should explain that residents would qualify for tax credits, while the vitality of the neighborhood, and quality of life could be improved drastically. In any manner, thank you for referencing his ward as it is probably one of the most widespread areas of demolition while being off the public agenda. The worst part is its central location near both Grand Center and the West End. There is really little excuse for demolition in such an area. Sadly, this is why the three homes on Washington were demolished. We now have Saaman planting grass instead of beginning their new condos. Talk about excellent decision making. Perhaps there should be a city wide ordinance requiring that plans and a time line must be released from developers before demolition occurs? I think this is appropriate especially when public subsidy is involved as it would be easier to enforce. Not releasing plans would mean no subsidy.
Doug,
A $200 (or less) Home Depot-standard issue front door or a $99 vinyl window are much lower in price than historically appropriate replacement doors and windows. Perhaps by as much as a factor of seven to ten.
Does the state offer historic tax credits for piecemeal rehab? Doubtful. Has anyone ever heard or seen confirmation of that practice?
So, yes, spending 7 to 10 times the cost for home maintenance items without any immediate financial relief in order to conform to local historic codes does place a burden on low income property owners.
That $200 door or that $99 window may look like a big improvement or it may look like crap, depending on one’s perspective. IF you have the resources and IF you live in an appreciating neighborhood, it’s in most people’s interest to “encourage” (through police powers and incentives) the use of better-quality and historically accurate materials, if common sense hasn’t already set in. But, if you live in too many parts of St. Louis, replacing that cracked, warped, unpainted single-pane window with anything new will be a big improvement, even if it “doesn’t match”, over what’s there now. Not everyone has adequate resources to do anything beyond basic maintenance, and the concept of tax credits is pretty foreign when the closest you get to understanding the tax code is if and how big will my tax refund be?
My basic point is that positive efforts are more productive in the long run than punitive ones. Telling a property owner that they can’t do something is punitive. Offering incentives to do something (like paying someone not to tear down a vacant structure, through property tax rebates or aggressive downward reassesments, for instance) is positive. As long as the city and the neighbors are not participating financially in the maintenance and/or any redevelopment of a parcel, there need to be limits on the limits. And while I’ll agree that preserving a neighborhood’s fabric is laudable, from what I see, there are way too many derelict buildings out there already that are beyond being salavagable, and are draining the lives out of too many of neighborhoods, especially on the north side. As a city, we don’t have the resources to maintain them, and we’re looking at many, many years before the economics will make sense to do something with them. Personally, if I had to pick, I’d pick a vacant lot over a vacant (and hopefully secure) structure as a neighbor any day. It’s one thing when the vacancy is temporary (as in weeks or months), it’s a whole ‘nuther thing when we’re talking years or decades.
Jim,
You are right that the City isn’t doing enough. Rather than promoting rehabs on the North Side, what we have with Paul McKee is 100,000,000 for demolition instead of what could be wide scale rehabs and infill construction. The market probably doesn’t make it very viable for parts of the North Side, thus this tax credit bill is being proposed. Yet, instead of a positive outcome, that being rehabs, we are looking at what will probably be an urban renewal style project.
Regarding the management of derelict buildings, specifically the LRA, there is a clear bureaucratic failure. At the rate of the LRA’s progression, it would take some 300 years for them to transition all of their holdings to private usage. In my opinion and from what I have researched, they are an agency operating under a culture of failure. If they were successful then their agency would cease to exist. SLDC reports highlight their triumphs, yet the numbers, and reality on the ground, is much different.
Is it possible to have a discussion about St. Louis redevelopment policies without another thread turning into a Blairmont narrative or a slam on LRA?
After growing up in Kirkwood, Benton Park has been home most of my adult life. I was one of the gutsy ones in the mid-80s. I have been active with the Benton Park Neighborhood Association and the Benton Park Housing Corporation and also served on the Preservation board for seven years. A couple of years ago, after an absolutely hideous 3rd floor addition to a 2-story brick home, a core group of long time neighbors were ultimately motivated to put an end to the developer defecation. BP passed its Local Historic District in 2006 after considerable dilegence of soliciting neighborhood support.
A few interesting factoids- in the 1980 census approximately 80% of the home in BP were owner occupied. In 2000 census, the ratio was almost the inverse proportion, 70% were now income property. To have that high a percentage of investment property in the neighborhood (with property values rising) we observed an increase of “rehabs” (more like remuddles) that were being done without HTC. The only code compliance was the City’s Building Division. The $99 windows and orange slice window on front doors were becoming too frequent…. Hence we opted to pursue the benefits of establishing a local historic district. We researched historic codes from many parts of the country. In the end, we opted to utilize Soulard’s code as a template and softened up a few aspects. The code was originally written very well and I know it is able to hold up in court.
Relative to the going-on in McKinley Heights, my sense is that the historic district matter has become a pawn and that there are other issues that residents are taking sides on.