Home » Board of Aldermen »Featured »History/Preservation »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

See Demolition Requests At Demolition Docket

Face it, building demolition in the City of St. Louis is a fact of life. Much of the city is in “preservation review” where we know city staff will review applications for demolition permits, denials are heard in public before the Preservation Board. But because we value fiefdoms, some wards are excluded from this review process. With so many vacant buildings, how is the average citizen to know when an owner wants to raze their building just down  the street?

Enter the Demolition Docket:

The St. Louis Demolition Docket is a private news service that reports the demolitions of buildings granted by the City of St. Louis. The Preservation Research Office publishes and compiles the report from public records maintained by the Building Division of the City of St. Louis.

The most recent post, from June 17, 2015. Click to view post.
The most recent post, from June 17, 2015. Click to view post.

Big thanks to Michael Allen and everyone involved for putting this together. This new site can be followed on RSS, Twitter, & Facebook. I’ve added it to the links in the sidebar — under both blogroll & research sources.

— Steve Patterson

 

 

 

Currently there are "13 comments" on this Article:

  1. gmichaud says:

    Michael doesn’t even have the demolition review listed on his website, so thanks for the info. Both you and Michael have done a great deal to further urban discussions over the years. I wish the best to both of you.

     
  2. gmichaud says:

    So my thoughts are this: the photos show quite a few of buildings that appear in good shape, even the falling wood porch on a brick building makes things appear worse than they really are.
    This goes back to the discussion of transit as it relates to demolition. How is the city to be built? And let’s focus on the city although certainly inner ring suburbs and old time communities like Kirkwood and Ferguson are part of a discussion.
    Demolition, especially of sound buildings, should fit into an overall urban plan that supports walking and by extension transit. Or what is the other idea?
    Making demolition public as Micheal has done is that it shines light on the very question of what type of city is being built.
    Sound buildings should not be destroyed: especially until a clear path of urban development is cited and made known to the people of St. Louis.

     
  3. JZ71 says:

    While we can all get bummed by reading this list, there’s really not much else we can do, directly. Maybe we can get together and figure out a way to to buy and “save” a few of them. But most owners look at demolition, especially of sound structures, as a last resort, unless, of course, they’re buying a nearby parcel for more parking. The city can’t just arbitrarily say no, even if some neighbors “object”, and even if they could, the end result, in most cases, would just be demolition thru neglect (see much of north city). So yeah, we can continue to lament the continued loss of some interesting, even some very interesting, old buildings, but the only way to change this dynamic is thru the marketplace – create demand, make them valuable, not expendable. Put you money where your mouth is, along with your spouses’, your relatives’, your employers’ and even your enemies’ . . .

     
  4. guest says:

    Discussing demolition without a context? What’s the point?

     
  5. guest says:

    Does this mean that if I get a permit to demolish our raggedy old garage it will be listed in this website? Why?

     
  6. gmichaud says:

    There should be policy changes. Sound buildings should have clear replacement values. In addition, like the historic districts it is possible to create districts for transit, walking and neighborhoods that may be harmed by unnecessary demolition and be used by a demolition “board of citizens” to pass on any decisions. There are many factors to consider, but the wanton destruction of old St. Louis should stop.
    Make no mistake about it, the destruction of old St Louis is not an accident. It was necessary to develop St Charles and other counties.
    The people running things aren’t getting it done.

     
    • guest says:

      Pontificate much? There are extremes. Maybe St. Louis is too unregulated; maybe it’s too regulated. It can take a long time to demolish a decrepit building in St. Louis. Bureaucrats run everything.

       

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



FACEBOOK POSTS

Loving Rooster's new cafe seating. Perhaps just because the previous picnic benches were so awful for the public right-of-way (PROW). #stl ... See MoreSee Less

1 day ago  ·  

Change at NW corner of 11th & Locust. Parking lot now exists onto Locust. #stl ... See MoreSee Less

1 day ago  ·  

Rcvd new book to review: Resilient Cities, 2nd Ed; Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence; pub by Island Press ... See MoreSee Less

3 days ago  ·  

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe