Preservation Board Says ‘No’ To Demolition Request in Old North
One of the duties of the city’s cultural resources office and the Preservation Board is to consider requests for demolition permits in much of the city. Some wards are excluded and are free to destroy our history. Other parts of the city are covered by local and national historic districts. Such districts don’t automatically save individual buildings from demolition anymore than individual listing does (see the fugly parking garage where the Century Building stood for decades). Still the Preservation Board has strict criteria used to determine if it should allow a building to be razed. Criteria includes the rehab potential of the structure among other things. It doesn’t mean the current owner has the means to do the rehab or that it fits into their plans but that it is feasible for someone to rehab the building.
Some members naturally lean toward saving buildings while others almost have a perverse pleasure in voting in favor of demolition. The majority sticks to the criteria spelled out in the applicable ordinance in each case.
Last night’s meeting included a controversial demolition request for a rather typical vernacular structure on Hadley St in Old North St Louis. Much of Old North is in the Murphy-Blair National Register Historic District. The very future of the district was potentially at stake according to Cultural Resources director Kathleen Shea and Michael Allen from Landmark’s Association and the excellent Ecology of Absence blog. At the district’s inception in the early 80’s it included some 600 “contributing” structures. By some estimates as much as a third of those have been razed in the years since. The Missouri state historic preservation office has the ability to review districts and de-certify them if they’ve lost enough of what made it a district in the first place. Much of the individual rehabs and the current $35 million dollar project around the former 14th Street Pedestrian Mall were possible thanks to state historic preservation tax credits. If the district were to be de-certified it would be hard to make the numbers work to renovate more buildings in the neighborhood.
At issue last night was a building on the SW corner of Hadley St and Montgomery St., numbered 2619-21 Hadley St (map). While I tend to side with property owners in cases of eminent domain when it comes to demolition the common good of the whole neighborhood must be considered. As is the case in many parts of North St Louis, if you raze enough structures you cease to have a neighborhood.
This is the second time The Haven of Grace, a shelter for pregnant homeless women, has requested permission to raze this structure. In February 2007 they asked the board to consider demolition of this and another building on the same block (agenda item). At that time the Cultural Resources staff recommended the board approve the demolition of one structure but not this one. I was there that night a year and a half ago when The Haven of Grace agreed to save this building if they could demolish the other. Doing so would clear the way for the non-profit to construct three new 4-family buildings. The board then approved the demolition of one structure but not this one.
So last night this building was on the agenda again. This time Haven of Grace was primarily represented by their board President, Harold R Burroughs. Burroughs is an attorney with the firm Brian Cave. Knowing the next step, if the Preservation Board followed the staff recommendation and denied the demo request, would be court he spent a lot of time making his case. Kate Shea spent time making her case too. When the court looks at these cases they simply review the record of evidence presented to the Board to see if they followed the applicable ordinance(s).
Burroughs indicated they could not build their third building on the vacant land as planned because their contractor wouldn’t work next to the existing structure. A non-structural back wall has collapsed since the February 2007 meeting. Another of the criteria used is the redevelopment plan for the site. This time the plan is landscaping, not as compelling as a replacement building. After a good two hours the Preservation Board voted 4-1 to uphold the staff denial of the demolition permit. It was the right decision based on the evidence presented and the criteria they must follow.
Sounds like the fallback position could also be demolition through neglect . . .
“We realize you’re pregnant, we realize you’re homeless and that you literally have no other place to turn. We’re sorry we don’t have enough room as the Preservation Board has deemed this “structure†more important than your well being. Have you tried Reverend Rice?â€
We realize that this is a historic building, we realize that there aren’t many left and that it just needs work to fix it up. We’re sorry we don’t have the desire to rehab it as we have deemed it as old and we want all new shiny things. Have you tried finding an empty lot in the county?
“We realize you’re pregnant, we realize you’re homeless and that you literally have no other place to turn. We’re sorry we don’t have enough room as the Preservation Board has deemed this “structure†more important than your well being. Have you tried Reverend Rice?â€
.
give me a break. rules are rules. they knew them all along. there is no lack of vacant land on which they can build.
I was worried that this demo would be allowed, but this decision has restored a bit of my faith in the preservation board.
I think I might have to side w/ Mr. Daly on this one. I love historic buildings, but I love human beings more. And yes, the building could be rehabbed, but a non-profit like Haven of Grace functions on limited funding. I’m assuming that they could demolish the existing building and build a structure of equal size for less money than rehabbing.
If everyone is so concerned about saving old buildings, maybe they should volunteer their time and money for haven of grace to renovate this building for additional housing?
Using historic tax credits, you can rehab for cheaper than building new. You also end up with a much better project. (The existing new construction is actually pretty good, but they forgot front doors. I’m not saying they have to work, but they at least need to be there.) However, it would have to be a turnkey project done by another developer because non-profits are not eligibly for tax credits.
Historic tax credits does not make rehab “cheaper” than new construction. It costs more. Way more.
Historic tax credits offset some of the cost, but there’s no doubt the work is more expensive.
.
Okay, so why is everyone saying Haven of Grace has no front doors? Huh? I’ve been there, and you enter directly into a lobby area through an entrance off of the parking lot.
Can is the key word. You can throw up a cheap vinyl box for less no doubt, but to get the same end product, rehab is cheaper. I have a preliminary budget for a rehab very close to this and it is much less than any new construction of the same size, and especially the same quality. That is pre tax credit. It’s all in how you look at it. Hard to actually compare new with rehab on an equal playing field.
You also don’t destroy our cultural heritage in the process when you rehab. Remember, Haven of Grace agreed to rehab this building in exchange for demo of the other. I know it’s a different animal, but Haven of Grace has the resources to rehab this building that is in better condition than most of the 14th St. rehab buildings. I know, I was in each and everyone of the 14th St. Buildings pre-rehab. Haven of Grace has blatantly let this building deteriorate in the hopes of securing a demo permit in the future. Luckily this tactic has not yet worked. The contractor claiming that the building is too unstable to work around is ridiculous. How would anything get rehabbed if that were the case. And they sure didn’t have any trouble dumping dirt right around the house.
You enter off the parking lot which is in the back. The doors off the back would be back doors, not front doors. You explained it yourself. Like I said, I think Haven of Grace did a good job with the new construction, but even fake front doors should have been part of the plan. The buildings just don’t look right. I would have actually preferred a more modern styled residence, but they did a much better job with faux historic than most, including all four sides fully bricked.
There is so much vacant land in the city, you do not need to tear down a single structure. Who were the geniuses at Haven of Grace who bought property surrounded by historic buildings? How much do you want to bet that demolition was their goal all along? Remember, just because your organization does good deeds for the community does not mean that you receive carte blanche for everything you propose.
Re. the front door questions, I was thinking of their original building, not the historic replicas that came later. Now I understand your point. Sorry for the mixup.
The Haven can’t “find an empty lot in the county” or even Old North. It’s programmatic needs are for the campus to be monitored within the same block. Their after-care program is demanding of the women, and they work closely with the staff in the main building.
I understand that several folks have suggestions for funding of this rehab. Has anyone tried knocking on their door and offering assistance?? Instead of ranting on a blog, reach out to your neighbor.
John Daly & friends… if this were either help homeless moms or proactively preserve access to HTC program for all the other homeowners in the community, I’d agree with you too. However, it is not either-or, it is both-and. The Haven wants to knock down the corner building to make a vacant lot. They want to build their 3rd building next to that newly vacant lot. They say they can’t start the 3rd building b/c the old building is too fragile to work next door. Well, spend the money and tuckpoint the old building. Then build your new building next door.
This is not rocket science. The contractor they got bids from was quoting $300/sqft. This is patently rediculous. We are all rehabbing this identical building stock in ONSL and homeowners who hire lic. general contractors to do all the work are paying around $100/sqft. ONSLRG has paid more than that for their spectacular saves, but this building is in pretty good shape… no worse than my building a few blocks away.
OR, sell the building as-is for $10K and have someone else tuckpoint it. I brought Dianne Berry a buyer last year and she turned them down. They bought another vacant building in ONSL and I can look out my window and watch them tuckpoint.
And, regarding the comment that people like me are not knocking on the door and trying to help, that is also not true. I have contributed a list of better and more seasoned historic contractors and creative brokers to a contact on the Haven board, and they didn’t call any of them. Haven has repeatedly rejected the idea of talking to the neighbors about how to go about this in a way which is win-win.
This is a seriously non-NIMBY community which supports and welcomes a homeless shelter. We just need them to support us back.
Thanks,
Barbara
I appreciate the information Barbara, and understand that these issues are far more complicated than can truly be expressed on a blog post. And I am naïve enough to believe that everyone has to have the same bottom goal in mind; namely, to enrich the neighborhood and to enrich people’s lives. I agree, one doesn’t have to happen at the expense of the other.
That newly renovated tuck pointed building could probably serve a wonderful purpose, and I’m hopeful that someone will come up with the right idea. Might it be time for the Haven to have an open house and welcome their neighbors and welcome their ideas? At the very least, they should acknowledge their identity when they comment on a blog.
Steve, can you keep us updated on this story?
So wait a second… we’re tearing down historic homes because a single contractor – who very clearly has little regard for the city and its culture – won’t work next to it? FINALLY. That lot WOULD provide the perfect space for a very long driveway terminating in a great big four car garage with vinyl siding and a fake brick facad. Or better yet, a Dollar General store with a huge parking lot. But my real dream is that one day I’ll look at downtown and Old North from Google Earth or Microsoft Live and see nothing but dirt.
HOG needs to incorporate some home repair courses in their curriculum. Tuckpointing isn’t rocket science.
HOG encourages vocational training and what better way than to make it mandatory to work on the old structure. Sure, the vast majority of them may never have to tuckpoint again but numerous life lessons can be learned from that single job experience, notwithstanding the fact that one day they might just have the need to tuckpoint a couple of places on their front porch.
I went by this building for my lunch time run today and I would agree it needs a major overhaul. Although the potential is still there and with all the rehab going on in the area, someone’s gotta be interested. I am sure there’s a way to make this work.