19th Century Frame House Survives Another Month
At the monthly Preservation Board meeting last night the owner of a property seeking a demolition permit requested more time. The Preservation Review ordinance requires the board to make a timely decision once an application for demolition is submitted. In this case the representative of the owner waived that timely decision requirement.
The property is owned by the New Life Evangelistic Center. The property in question is located at 4722 Tennessee. This is next door to a former residence of mine from 1994-2004. I sold that property in 2006 prior to NLEC buying the adjacent property.
The house, a rural farmhouse, is in great condition and predates everything around it. It is one of only a few remaining such structures in the city. The city’s Cultural Resources office has indicated the building is individually eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
In 2007 NLEC sought to demolish the historic house and construct a parking lot. This year they said they wanted to build a community garden. My experience with community gardens is that they are not typically on privately held property.
The NLEC rep indicated they do not have the funds to restore the house. Perhaps they should not have bought the property then? Before a rare (but modest) historic 19th Century structure should be razed it should be offered on the open market. The house has sold before but only in conjunction with the commercial storefront and greenhouse to the South. The house is now legally separated from that building.
The adjacent vacant land could hold two new homes.
This will be back before the Preservation Board in December 2008 or January 2009.
Prior related posts:
Click here to view this agenda item on this property from last night’s meeting (includes recent photos).
If it’s “in great condition”, has anyone looked at moving it to a vacant lot nearby? Any rural context is long gone, and the NLEC probably sees no value in the structure, only in the land, so someone could likley buy it for a $1, move it less than a couple of miles and get a perfectly fine home for less than $100,000 . . .
Once moved, the home may lose its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and any rehab tax credit potential. Movement is not desirable or necessary.
NLEC purchased the house after the Preservation Board denied the last owner’s appeal. NLEC purchased the house after Alderwoman Kirner stated that she would support only the rehabilitation of the house. NLEC knew exactly what it was getting into when it purchased the house. The mandate for rehabilitation from the Board and the alderwoman was clear. NLEC purchased the wrong property for its plans, against that mandate.
Yet another reason to hate our local exploiter of the homeless. Sure, it’s in good shape today. But after Rice is denied the demolition permit, he’ll let it rot until it IS worthy of demolition. Why does anyone send money to this dirt bag?
Other historic structures have been moved, but you’re right, I have no idea how a move, in this case, would impact either the designation or, more importantly, any tax credits. Still, the questions shouldn’t be that hard to get answered. Unfortunately, Nick is right, demolition through neglect is a likely outcome if the structure isn’t moved. Designation and credits are incentives, not a guarantee. And the hard reality is that we, in the city, have more old structures (all with their own unique histories) than we currently have viable uses for them, and the lack of a viable use usually equates with abandonment.
.
I do have a question about Michael’s statement, that “The mandate for rehabilitation from the Board and the alderwoman was clear.” Does that mandate include resources (other than tax credits)? Or is it simply telling a private property owner what they can and cannot do with their property? The city doesn’t own the property. The NLEC does, and no matter how vile they may (be portrayed to) be, they do have certain rights to use any property they purchase at fair market value, including demolition (following proper procedures). If the city/alderwoman/Preservation Board believes that this one structure is irreplaceable, then it’s their responsibility to find the money to buy it and preserve it. The alternative, of simply imposing unreasonable requirements on an individual property owner, amounts to an outright abuse of governmental power.
If the city/alderwoman/Preservation Board believes that this one structure is irreplaceable, then it’s their responsibility to find the money to buy it and preserve it. The alternative, of simply imposing unreasonable requirements on an individual property owner, amounts to an outright abuse of governmental power.
How is a review board’s exercise of its legal powers an outright abuse of governmental power? The Board followed the tenets of the city’s preservation review ordinance, which directs the board to deny demolition if none of the criteria established through the ordinance is met. I recommend that you read the city’s preservation ordinances to become familiar with the legal power of the Preservation Board.
Does the Building Division have to buy plumbing supplies for an owner whose building permit is denied because he wants to use duct tape to fix a broken drain line? Is that an “abuse” of its power? Of course not.
The burden of compliance for the city’s various building codes rests with the applicant.
http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data/ord4832.htm is the applicable ordinance. You’re right, it does appear that the preservationists were successful in making demolition in designated areas extremely difficult and subject to arbitrary decisions by bureaucrats with no fiduciary interest in the properties they’re “evaluating”: “All demolition permit application reviews pursuant to this chapter shall be made by the Director of the Office . . . [the] Structure’s architectural merit, uniqueness, and/or historic value shall be evaluated and the structure classified as high merit, merit, qualifying, or noncontributing based upon: Overall style, era, building type, materials, ornamentation, craftsmanship, site planning, and whether it is the work of a significant architect, engineer, or craftsman; and contribution to the streetscape and neighborhood. Demolition of sound high merit structures shall not be approved by the Office. Demolition of merit or qualifying structures shall not be approved except in unusual circumstances . . . The Office shall make exterior inspections to determine whether a structure is sound. If a structure or portion thereof proposed to be demolished is obviously not sound, the application for demolition shall be approved except in unusual circumstances . . .” Using these criteria, pretty much any structure will be denied demolition unless it’s falling down or built after 1960, leaving desperate and/or recalcitrant property owners two options, benign neglect or arson. I stand by my two basic arguments, that not every old building can or should be saved and that if the city wants to save every old building, they need to find the money to do it themsleves!
.
The Building Division and their Codes and permits have a valid basis in protecting the public’s safety and their application is not nearly as draconian as this ordinance. “Preservation” of individual buildings or groups of buildings, while a laudable goal, when regulated to this degree, in my mind, goes beyond the basic police powers granted to any government, to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. Tastes change over time. The values of a neighborhood and the larger community change over time. We’re a nation formed under the concept of individual property rights. We walk a fine line here between responding to the demands of a vocal, albeit well-intentioned minority and the rights of individuals to decide if they want to keep a specific structure, especially one like this, where its uniqueness is primarily that the city grew up around it and that it’s still in relatively-good shape.
.
I can understand why the neighbors don’t want a parking lot next to them – I wouldn’t want one next to me, either. But if that’s the issue, rewrite our zoning ordinances to prohibit parking lots in areas like this and/or add appropriate screening and setback requirements. Arguing that an old “farmhouse” simply can’t be moved or torn down because of some vague, broadly-defined qualifications, especially when it’s not yet on the National Register of Historic Places, rubs me the wrong way. St. Louis is over 200 years old. Every block and most of our structures have some sort of “history” that can be associated with them. We simply can’t live in the past, and if we make the rules too stringent and elitist, we’re going to see the same examples of the laws of unintended consequences experienced in other older cities like Cincinnati . . .
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article918365.ece . . . another example of inflexibility and its consequences . . .
That’s great! The parking lot will help him set up another upstanding homeless shelter in St. Louis. He will be loved by all — well, except for the homeless and his neighbors. But that’s another story.
another example of inflexibility and its consequences . . .
What an uncharacteristically thoughtless argument, Jim.
I’ve asked this question before, but ever received an answer…
Just what does Larry Rice do to earn a label such as “dirtbag?” All of the homeless that our church has dealt with who have taken advantage of Mr. Rice’s generosity speak very highly of him.
If one embraces historic preservation, than anything that furthers saving old buildings is good. If one embraces the concept of private property rights, then preservation can easily be viewed as unwanted and unwarranted government intrusion. I can see the logic of both sides and I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m also very leery of government trying to define and enforce “good” design standards, since tastes change and laws rarely keep up. I also have no problem with the government having higher standards for the minority of truly significant structures. Where I have a big problem is when the government imposes stringent requirements on secondary or more-mundane or prosaic structures. Yes, they contribute to the “feel” of a neighborhood, but freezing their appearance at some arbitrary point in time (requiring wood replacement windows instead of vinyl, for instance) crosses a significant line, at least in my mind. Their bulk and rhythm is more important than any window or cornice detail, and unless the government wants to fund the higher cost of these items, they’re over-stepping any police authority granted in the constitution. I basically resent someone else making value judgements based on aesthetics. Yes, this will result in some “bad” outcomes, brick building being painted purple, for instance. But it also results in variety and reinvestment and a lot more creativity – the arch wouldn’t have passed muster if subject to typical historic design review. And as much as preservationists want to deny it, property owners who don’t want to comply with requirements they deem to be too oppressive or extreme WILL find ways around the regulations, usually to the detriment of the larger community. Bottom line, be careful what you ask for . . .
.
A classic case is the old steam plant where Cannon Design has their new offices. The site originally housed the Chouteau Mansion, a significant structure. The city bought it, demolished it and replaced it with a courthouse in the 1800’s – it was apparently comparable in style and scale to the Old Post Office. During the Depression, new courts were built elsewhere and the old courthouse was demolished and replaced with a new steam plant. Which of the three structures would be the most significant and deserving of prservation and/or reconstruction?! I would argue that the present “steam plant” is the LEAST significant, yet it’s the one being preserved, simply because it’s there! We live in a city with a lot of history. We’re not St. Augustine or Williamsburg or Santa Fe. We’re not a “living museum”, and we simply can’t expect to “save” every old building. Yes, we have many significant structures, but we also have many that are simply old. Leave it up to the property owners to decide what’s best for their properties – very few want to see them go down in value, and focusing on basic life safety issues should be more than adequate to ensure that properties and their neighbors are adquately, but not overly, protected . . .