You really need to follow the link and see the photos. Here are the first three paragraphs as enticement.
When in architecture school in St. Louis, I remember professors often saying that a building is salvageable until it’s town down. It just depends on the priorities of the community and the willingness to take on a challenge.
Take the above partially collapsed rowhouse in St. Louis as an example. If this building were in Louisville, it would likely have been torn down soon after it suffered the collapse, but in St. Louis, demolition requests were denied and the structure was renovated as seen in the photo below.
While this example is in the up-and-coming Lafayette Square neighborhood of St. Louis, there are also examples of similar renovations in in less well off neighborhoods with similar result. Based on these examples, it seems like demolitions like these shouldn’t have ever happened.
15 comments:
A couple years ago I walked through a house recently deemed "Structurally Deficient" by the city. The house had no structurally deficiencies. It was slated for demolition merely because neighbors complained about tall weeds and other minor cosmetic issues. Demolition was not the best option for the city. The city pursued it because it was the easy option.
Preservationists can make arguments about historic architecture. Community activists can argue about the corrosive effects of too many vacant lots on a streetscape. I'm going to argue pure fiscal responsibility. Tearing down that house would have cost the city approximately $7,000-$8,000. Not tearing it down keeps it on the tax rolls and generates considerably more revenue than a vacant lot.
Why are we spending city money to reduce our tax base? It should not have taken the intervention of community volunteers with this house. Volunteers convinced the city to delay demolition while they located the absent owner and found a buyer. Volunteers helped the elderly owner clean up the site. They found a contractor who was willing to buy the property and fix it up. He did buy the property, he fixed it up and he sold it for a profit to some young first time home buyers. All the city do was (1) chip in a dumpster and (2) not spend the money to demo the building.
When we have so many needs in the city, I'm amazed that the city council will, without much debate, allocate $100,000 to demo more buildings. I'm sure some of those houses have real problems. But with less than $100,000, I could incentivize the rehabilitation of many of those structures, save the city money, improve the appearance of the neighborhoods, and improve the tax base.
Dan funny that you write this but at the meeting today, about the Mayoral Forum, we talk about this vary issue.
"Demolition was not the best option for the city.”
Demolition as the city does it currently is not the “best option” but what we talked about at the meeting was the city needs a plan for the property after demo.
So often do I see where a home was torn down or burnt down and the cheapest building is built in its place or an ugly duplex is built.
What I asked Carl and the Mayor is to work with me to create a plan that would guarantee that the city would regulate what happens to the vacant lot or work with private individuals with acquiring the property. This plan would make sure a home that meets design characteristics of that particular neighborhood be respected. In some situations the property would be divided between the neighbors if the housing density is high in that area.
I will be following up with Carl after a list of properties are formulated that the city owns and a pilot project be started.
Saving every old house is not being open minded but saving the ones that should be, and that can be, and tearing down the ones that should be, followed by building the right house in its place is a broader perspective. Doing this will increase the property values and generate more tax revenue for the city.
Doesn't the fact that minimal housing standards are not enforced in New Albany have everything to do with the catastrophic decline of the housing stock and then the need to "bury the body" through demolition?
How many ways can the concerned citizenry speak to the issue of minimal housing standards, code for "code enforcement" before the slumlord stranglehold on our town is relieved?
I think another problem relates to developers in this area. Many developers are looking to build entire new buildings or houses, not renovate. Thus, they want buildings torn down and lots opened up to start anew. It's more profit for them, but doesn't help our community.
Evan C how do you see that it wouldn't help the community?
RememberCharlemagne:
It's not beneficial to constantly forget about old buildings and move on to other areas. It's not good for the community because:
• Buildings and areas are forgotten about
• Fields and forests are paved over
• It's more environmentally-friendly to renovate than build entirely new
Specifically in regard to buildings, look at the development of New Albany. First developers build up State Street, then Charlestown Road, then Charlestown Road by the interstate. With each move, buildings go vacant and become rundown. More fields are paved over, traffic becomes worse and sewer systems are pushed to their limits.
Indeed, it has been instructive to watch Steve Resch clean house while many of his brethren gaze longingly at green spaces and dream of shoddy subdivisions.
• Buildings and areas are forgotten about
• Fields and forests are paved over
• It's more environmentally-friendly to renovate than build entirely new
Specifically in regard to buildings, look at the development of New Albany. First developers build up State Street, then Charlestown Road, then Charlestown Road by the interstate. With each move, buildings go vacant and become rundown. More fields are paved over, traffic becomes worse and sewer systems are pushed to their limits.
I agree but it doesn't address why that has happened.
One reason is because people who don't like living in areas where there is substandard housing or unkept property move out taking their money with them leaving those who chose to stay or can't afford to move behind.
Once their money leaves so do the businesses.
Addressing the neighborhoods by weeding out those substandard houses people will return and once the people return so do the businesses.
Right?
Sustained, forceful code enforcement is the fastest, most effective and most cost effective way to attract both new construction and quality rehabs in our existing neighborhoods.
It works two ways. Code enforcement (1) allows builders/remodelers to obtain derelict properties at a lower price and (2) allows builders/remodelers to more easily sell at a higher price when work is complete.
PURCHASE:
In New Albany, a house with antiquated electric, leaky roof, lead paint, cockroaches and a few boarded up windows can be rented. In Louisville, it cannot be rented. Houses that can be rented are sold at higher prices than houses that do not generate income.
I have a client who has made a very good living "flipping" 100+ year old houses. He works on both sides of the river and has flipped more than 500 properties in his career. His technique is to purchase the worst of the worst. He basically purchases abandoned houses, tears them more or less down to the studs, replaces all systems, the roof and most finishes. He then sells them for top dollar.
He does very good work but most of his work occurs in Louisville. He lives in New Albany so why doesn't he work here? Because the worst of the worst are much cheaper in Louisville. In Louisville, he often pays $5000-$10,000 for boarded up, abandoned houses with severely outdated plumbing, electric and HVAC. In New Albany, the exact same houses go for $25,000-$30,000 dollars. That's because the owners of those houses can rent them here while they cannot in Louisville.
Enforce the codes here and the landlords will make economic decisions to either make repairs of unload the properties. Don't enforce the codes and you'll have more of the same.
RESALE:
Right now, if a builder were to put $140,000 into a new, three bedroom, 1400 sq ft house in the 1300 block of Ekin Ave., the builder might be able to sell that house for $120,000. Build the exact same house somewhere else, at the exact same cost to the builder, and the builder will make a profit. Where's your builder going to build? Not Ekin.
Moral of the story? To get quality new construction (or quality rehabilitations), it helps to increase property values. The single best way to do that is through code enforcement.
RemCha,
I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to improve what is built in our existing neighborhoods. It's an important step. However, even with the best (or at least most detailed) restrictions on what can and cannot be built, as long as the appraisal comparisons for the neighborhood aren't high enough, people are not going to build too many new buildings of any type.
The Historic Preservation ordinance has very clear guidelines for new construction. That's part of the reason why our new YMCA does not look like a Wal-Mart. As has been much discussed here, the goal preservation ordinance's goal is not to stop new construction in historic districts and it's not to make new constriction mimic historic structures. On the contrary, most serious preservationists want historic neighborhoods to be vibrant. Preservationists want new constriction that compliments, without mimicking, the surrounding buildings. The YMCA achieves this by being close to the street instead of just near the floodwall like a traditional, suburban style strip-mall might have been. Also, the YMCA is similar in height, mass and material to surrounding buildings like the Schmidt Furniture Building.
In the historic districts at least, we have a good ordinance in place that both (1) prevents the construction of new structures that depress property values while (2) still being flexible enough to accommodate modern designs, modern building techniques and individual needs.
We've seen a few new structures in our historic districts but our districts face the same problem the rest of our neighborhoods face. The lack of code enforcement depresses property values for quality new construction.
If first you enforce the codes, then people will want to invest here. When they do invest here, then, as you wrote, we do need to have a plan in place to make sure the new construction occurs in a thoughtful way. I'm certainly not saying it's too early to have a plan. I'm saying that you won't see your plan in action until after serious code enforcement takes root.
We are reminded of the children who died, burned to death on Chartres because the "landlord" had wired his "rental house" with extension cords.
The extension cords overheated. They caught on fire and burned. And when they burned the house down, the children died.
Code enforcement is a must, not a choice.
We agree with Dan Chandler. Economics is a compelling reason. Staying alive is another, equally good reason.
Another fun thing to do in New Albany:
Drive around the alleys and look at the power drops on the small houses - you'll see houses that have three, four, five (and more) electric meters. Look at the mailboxes. Many, many mailboxes.
I have personally seen houses cut into apartments that have a toilet in the corner of a single room, a bed and a hot plate.
The landlord said to me "I don't know how people can live like this," even though he, himself, was personally responsible for "offering" such living conditions. And charging for such quarters.
Drive around and look at the meters. You'll be amazed... only in New Albany. It would be great if folks posted the photos of multiple meters on small houses.
I'd be happy to be the lead plaintiff in a suit against the city to cause them to enforce their buildings code. Anyone out there who wants to do it?
I will be receiving a "Facelift" award from the city tonight for Preservation month. I've spent about $50,000 to rehab my house on Main Street, only half finished too. While I invest, my slumlord neighbor strips me of my investment by his on-going abuse and code violations not to mention tenants who scare the hell out of the block. Who's side is the city on? I'm very close to putting my house on the market and leaving this place. After 4 years of constant work I'm exhausted and it's all to the benefit of my slumlord neighbors.
Post a Comment