Rundown of May ’06 Preservation Board
Here is a quick look at all the items from last night’s Preservation Board meeting in the order in which there were considered. For the agenda click here.
F: 3524 Victor/Compton Hill Historic District
New property owner buys house for $220K. Proceeds to rip out windows and cornice and replace with poor substitutes —- all without a permit. Staff denies request to keep non-conforming items. At March 2006 meeting he is told he must replace the front windows with appropriate windows as well as redo the cornice differently.
Window issue appears on the April 2006 — even though the board has taken final action and cannot legally take up issue again. Applicant is a no show at meeting but board votes to reaffirm prior month’s decision to require windows to be replaced with some having an appropriate profile.
May 2006 and the window issue is back. Why? The aldermen asked that it be reconsidered even though the law does not provide for such requests. Staff, Board and Board’s legal counsel give in to the request of Alderman to reconsider. Thankfully, board once again rejects the appeal and requires owner to replace windows. Alderman Stephen Conway is up for re-election in March 2007.
A – 1213-21 Dolman Street/Lafayette Square Historic District
Propsal is to build new townhoues with one attached to a very sold single room structure. Everyone, myself included, thinks this is an outstanding and well designed infill project. Board grants preliminary approval.
B: 2736-38 Geyer Ave/Fox Park Historic District
Proposal is to construct a new two unit building and one single unit building. Staff is seeking additional brick return on the sides of the proposed buildings although the ordinance does not require any brick return. A citizen that lives on the block in question raised concerns about the use of brick vs. stone window sills and the detailing on the cornice. Board granted preliminary approval.
C: 1418 Mississippi Ave/Lafayette Square Historic District
Proposal is very complicated. The stunning 2-story house facing Lafayette Square at one time had a third floor. That floor was destroyed in the big 1896 tornado. The owner is seeking to rebuild the original third floor. That much was pretty easy. Where it gets more complicated is the issue of a side porch, fencing and a pool. The owner has a very large side yard that happens to abut a little park located at Mississippi & Park (across from Ricardo’s). Since the side of the house technically faces a park and street the question of this being a public vs. intermediate vs. private facade was raised. The Board voted to defer the matter for now so that staff & the architects could continue working out details before coming back to the Board.
D: Forest Park Southeast Demolitions/Preservation Review District
The short version is the staff & applicant (a development arm of Wash U Medical and BJC) agreed to 22 demolitions rather than 32. The board approved those 22 demolitions. I argued before the Board the requirements of the ordinance had not been met by the applicant (financial hardship, verification buildings could not be rehabbed, etc…) and that until such evidence is shown along with something indicating what will replace these houses they should remain standing.
Forest West Properties, the owner, indicated they want to clear the properties for new construction. North of Chouteau they are wanting to do high-density housing. I said I could very well support those demolitions if I could see the alternative but in the absence of such alternative it was hard to support demolishing structures that to the trained eye could be rehabbed.
Mary “One” Johnson, the Board VP, attempted to argue the applicants case for him by saying new housing will help get things going in the area. What they failed to realize is those attempts and level and build new have not been successful in this neighborhood in the past. It was attempted in the 70’s and that new construction didn’t stem the evacuation. New construction in the last five years hasn’t made a huge impact either. Clearing many more houses will only send the message that old modest housing is worthless and the bulldozer will come for your house next.
E: 4961 Penrose St/City Park
This one is a real shame. A very cute house built in 1902 became part of Penrose Park just three years later in 1905. According to the staff report, it was used a park keeper’s house for many decades. The City’s construction administration arm, The Board of Public Service, claims the demolition has been planned since at least 1997. A park road is being re-routed away from Kingshighway to simplify an interchange. But the proposed route for the new road will place it on the East side of the house, not through it. A grass/berm like amphitheater is apparently what is planned for the site of the existing structure. Staff noted the great the condition of the house. Thankfully the Board did not take the staff recommendation and go with the demolition, instead they gave a one month deferral to give time to look at the house more closely.
Personally I’d like to see the house get saved. If they have the funds to raze the structure (a good $20K) they could instead mothball the structure. This would entail boarding the windows from the interior with black plywood to give the appearance of dark windows. Patch the roof as needed to keep water out , some paint and other work along with exterior plantings and you’ve got a viable structure for when a good use & funds become available. Perhaps through a “Friends of Penrose Park” type organization money could be raised to help renovate the structure for use for a kids program such as the one done in Tower Grove Park. It could be used by bicyclists that use the velodrom also located in the park. We’ve got plenty of room for an amphitheater but we’ll never have the funds to rebuild such a great looking structure. Many parks, including Lafayette Square, cherish their old structures. We deserve no less for Penrose Park.
Following this last item they went into “executive session” which is generally only permitted in cases of personnel issues, such as the hiring or firing of someone. I speculate that Kathleen Shea, the Director of the Cultural Resources office, may be ready to retire.
– Steve
“Clearing many more houses will only send the message that old modest housing is worthless and the bulldozer will come for your house next.”
Isn’t this statement a gross over-generalization?
While they are old and modest, these houses are also abandoned and in deplorable condition.
There are many neighborhoods where people are tired of living next to vacant, abandoned houses. They welcome demolition and new construction.
Homes on the Hill are “old and modest”, and well maintained. We watch as the Hill becomes “Claytonized” (or, more recently, “Dogtown-ified”), through demolition and replacement with infill mini-mansions.
Some might decry the losses of the old and modest homes, while most probably applaud the pricey new housing coming to the area.
Clearing many more houses will only send the message that old modest housing is worthless and the bulldozer will come for your house next.
Who is the ‘your’ in that sentence? It is the owner’s, I presume. I find it highly unlikely that your house would get bulldozed without your approval. Eminent domain excepted.
The situation cries for an answer to certain questions, how long must buildings stand vacant and deteriorating before they can be razed? What enforcement mechanisms do citizen’s have to compel homeowners to better keep their property? Can neighborhoods be better off with new, ‘suburban’, occupied houses rather than deteriorating, some occupied, old and modest houses?
The sentence might have read–
Clearing many more houses will only send the message that old modest housing is worthless and the bulldozer will come for your ***neighbor’s *** house next.
YRN: Who is this “most” who will “applaud the pricey new housing coming to the area”? Residents in FPSE who aren’t on the development corporation board barely know what is going on with the 32 houses. The neighborhood groups are tied up with considering the loss of the neighborhood playground and tennis courts on the 12 acres of Forest Park that BJC wants to build upon.
If “most” want “pricey new housing” then they should support rehab of these houses. All need enough work that they would basically be new if rehabbed. Unlike new houses, though, these architecturally interesting houses will hold their value on the market for much longer and will create an environment that will attract middle and upper class residents who won’t live in cheap boxes.
Seems doubtful that new housing coming to the south parts of FPSE would be high end. Possibly similar to Botanical Heights or slightly lower. Who knows? I’m just another nobody. Better to ask representatives from the agencies directly involved.
On the other hand, since Michael mentioned the neighborhoods’ concern over the loss of nearby parkland, this nobody has got to wonder…
Yes, they might lose some nice parkland across Hwy 40 from the neighborhood, but they still have the rest of the two square miles of Forest Park right on their doorstep to enjoy. The name of the friggin’ neighborhood is Forest Park Southeast! Thee Forest Park!
C’mon! Let’s get real!! FPSE residents have more city parkland within walking distance of their homes than just about any other city neighborhood.
We all should be so underserved…
I have become what I hate–
It should have read-
What enforcement mechanisms do citizens
No apostrophe!!!!!!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not every old property is historic. “Solid” does not equal energy-efficient nor does it contain modern electrical or air-conditioning systems. And, most importantly, the only antidote to sprawl (and the biggest advocate for public transit) is higher density. And the only way to significantly increase density is to tear down and start over. Not everywhere, but along major streets. Unfortunately, you also can’t legislate great design, and it’s presumptuous to assume that a city staff member (who has no financial interest in a project) should have more say than the property’s owner! The role of government is the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. Controlling an “inappropriate” soffit or window is an abuse of governmental power. It needs to be weather and vermin tight and not have peeling paint. It does not need a historic profile to provide a safe place to live. I can support the preservation of individual significant structure through the use of incentives. I do not support the style police having the power to impose their tastes over entire neighborhoods. I don’t want to live in a museum. Life is messy. Deal with it!
[REPLY – I’m almost with you. I agree that life is messy and I actually prefer some of that over staid areas. However, the horrible things that have been done to spectactular works of architecture in the name of process is so offensive that I can recognize that it is the application of exterior standards that has helped stabilize many neighborhoods.
Removing large wood brackets and detailing to be replaced with generic aluminum soffit can negatively affect the value not only of that house but also those adjacent. It is the role of government to regulate to a degree — this is why we have zoning that prevents someone from putting in a meat packing plant next to a residence. We must balance individual property rights with the rights of the community as a collective. – SLP]
“I do not support the style police having the power to impose their tastes over entire neighborhoods. I don’t want to live in a museum. Life is messy. Deal with it!”
Does that mean you are opposed to the local historic district standards in Lafayette Square and Soulard?
One could make the case that those standards helped to raise the value of all properties in the neighborhoods.
And others have called Lafayette Square one of the nicest neighborhoods anywhere.
Would it be as nice had inappropriate alterations been done haphazardly througout the neighborhood?
Picture those “Painted Ladies” facing Lafayette Park with $189 vinyl windows, white metal doors from Home Depot, and under-sized brass “carriage” lamps at the entries.
When local laws are enacted with neighborhood support (in this case to support historic preservation), isn’t that government for the people, by the people?
good question . . . .
One, should the “style police” be imposed on unwilling participants? Should the rules become more restrictive (meaning more expensive) for existing property owners? Without compensation? I don’t object to incentives (tax breaks for designated properties). I do object to using the “historic” designation simply as a design tool, when mandated, formal design review is a more honest and potentially more effective way of both preserving the existing building stock AND letting appropriate more-modern designs “intrude” on an existing area.
It’s the rare neighborhood that was completely built out within ten or twenty years. Styles change and tastes change. Why should any one period (Victorian, Art Deco, post-war suburban tract, log cabin) dictate what defines the “appropriate” design of any neighborhood. I’m an architect. I appreciate “good” design of many types. I also realize that many times new design trends seem very out of place when they start, but become more appreciated over time / with patina / in retrospect. Sure, cheap, “modern” materials can many times look wrong on older structures, but they can also look a whole lot better than the plywood (over windows) that typifies way too much of St. Louis’ “historic” housing stock.
Two (and more importantly) how should these rules be made known to both new buyers and existing residents? Should permits, for example, be required for window replacement citywide? (no excuses, more revenue) As it stands now, you have to go more than halfway through the city’s website for “When Do I Need a Building Permit?” (http://stlouis.missouri.org/government/building/whenpermit.html) before you find a reference to Historic Districts AND NO WEB LINK TO ANY MAPS! (just a phone number to call)
The process is flawed! The typical well-intentioned homeowner is set up to fail, and there’s no incentive or predictability for the small contractors who do things like window replacement. If the Aldermen actually do want to be all powerful, maybe they should be tasked with dispensing this type of information to their constituents. Bureaucratic double speak (“you don’t need a permit . . . . but you might”) is the core of the problem. If the City can’t provide consistent answers and stand behind them, there should be no do-overs required (unless the City’s willing to pay!).
[REPLY – I’m replying to this after the next person has commented but I wanted to put my thoughts here.
Jim we are very close in many views on this. I too am part of the design community and love modern design. I love to see good design of the period — with some provisions. Many of our historic standards do allow for some creative interpretation while weeding out the generic suburban crap.
Yes, I suppose a vinyl window is better than a boarded window — but that is the extreme viewpoint. When we are talking about a fully occupied area with large & pricey homes that have been lovingly restored it is often the home owners that seek such standards to help protect their investments. Shall we ignore their requests but this makes you uncomfortable? A balance must be struck. The design police ordinances have provisions for hardship exemptions.
You are totally correct not so much on the process but on how the city failed to communicate the process. The city’s website is a horrible mess. It communicates little and doesn’t get you from place to place they way a web tool should. Someone at city hall needs to take this on as a project. I agree, the city is partially at blame for these issues. They need to just add in big letters at the top of the building division page — our site sucks, call us. – SLP]
Playing devil’s advocate, I can think of one excellent example of a compromise on windows that turned out very well.
Check out the Scottish Arms building on Sarah.
The downstairs windows, doors, and sills all look very historically accurate.
Meanwhile, the upstairs windows are vinyl with aluminum cladding.
Overall, the building looks very good, without following strict historic rehabilitation standards.
And I’m with Jim on this point: vinyl is a lot better than vacant and boarded.
your regular nobody,
most residents who do not support the changes to hudlin park have reasons that are broader and less selfish than, we have to walk longer to get to the park.
having said that, I think having to walk longer to get to the park is a perfectly sensible and reasonable reason to oppose the current plan. This is especially true when one considers that the primary selling point of the neighborhood is the location and pedestrian access to park, metro, and entertainment/retail.
you sound jealous and resentful – maybe you should look for something in the neighborhood.
Steve – is this “evacuation” really an issue for my growing neighborhood and I just don’t know it?