Allegheny Angel-This might be of interest to you

[Debbie1125]

The law firm as well as the tenants said the buyer told them they would fix and modernize the house. Next thing they knew they were being evicted.

One of the community groups met with the buyer who at the time didn't state that he planned to demolish it. Instead he told them it would be renovated and rented out. Now all of the sudden it's "structurally unsound". I walk by there many times and the outside, at least, certainly does not look unsound.

What doesn't make sense is the buyer telling people that he would fix it, then claim that he is financially unable to. Why buy the house in the first place then?


The city council rep claims he knew nothing about it, and that may be true. Then again you never know with politicians........most of them are lying weasels.

For anyone interested in reading more details, here is a link to the thread. It gives a more accurate description of what is going on. This is what got myself and others into trying to save the house. I especially like what The Mule, post #42 has to say.


Demolition at 5901-09 Ridge Avenue?

[Hopes]

Maybe he did think he had the money to upate the property and subsquently discovered it was structurally unsound. I guarantee you that the cost to tear it down is more than what it would cost to merely update the building. It's super expensive to tear down a building especially a building that is made of concrete, stone and/or brick. Instead of walking by it, walk closely around it and check out the foundation and all sides of the stone exterior. A building can look structurally sound from one side and be very unstable on another side. You might think a little crack isn't a huge expense to fix, but often significant foundation problems are causing that crack.

We once saw a beautiful stone house for sale at such a low price it was unbelievable. The pictures from the front were stunning. When we sent to see it, we quickly discovered that the entire strucure was unstable. Hubby first noticed via looking into the front windows that the floors weren't level. When we walked around the side of the house, we could see where the foundation and the side stone exterior were repaired all the way to the roof. We could also see that the repair didn't work. The property had changed hands quite a few times between investors. It's value had deteriorated to valueless.

Why buy the house in the first place? Maybe he bought it at auction. That's a crap shoot gamble because you don't get to inspect the properties ahead of time. And if he has ended up with a building that is structurally unsound, the land is probably worth more than the building. As a result, tearing it down will help him recover his losses. Sorry to tell you, real estate is an investment business. It's not a historical business. If historical people want to save a building, they should start a fund to raise the money to buy the building from the owner. It's downright unfair to expect the owner to incure debt just because everyone wants to save a building.

I love old buildings. It's a shame to see them torn down. But I think we need to be realistic.

[Hopes]

I just read the thread you linked. I does confirm that he bought it through auction. That means he didn't get to inspect the property prior to bidding. That's the way auctions are done. It seems he gambled and lost. You really can't blame him. Anyone who bought it at auction would be in the same boat.

[Debbie1125]

Thanks for your informative posts, Hope. I wasn't aware that you couldn't inspect a house before buying it at an auction. You're correct when you say it's a gamble.

[PreservationPioneer]

A lot of people who want to tear a building down will make claims such as "It's unstable" or "It's full of asbestos," even when it's not, in order to have an excuse to tear it down. Whether that is the case here, I don't know, but it happens all of the time! Even when a building does have some of these problems, it is sometimes cheaper to make repairs than tear it down (especially in the case of asbestos abatement, which is necessary for demolition, anyway).

[Hopes]

I acknowledge it happens. But people who would like to preserve historic buildings would protect them best by starting a nonprofit that raised funds to purchase and renovate the historic buildings. It's really unfair to expect everyone to have the same respect for these buildings. If there are too many restrictions on what buyers can do with historic buildings, nobody would buy them and they would just sit vacant and deteriorate further, which brings down property values of other properties because neighborhoods with vacant buildings are undesirable.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by Debbie1125

The law firm as well as the tenants said the buyer told them they would fix and modernize the house. Next thing they knew they were being evicted.

One of the community groups met with the buyer who at the time didn't state that he planned to demolish it. Instead he told them it would be renovated and rented out. Now all of the sudden it's "structurally unsound". I walk by there many times and the outside, at least, certainly does not look unsound.

What doesn't make sense is the buyer telling people that he would fix it, then claim that he is financially unable to. Why buy the house in the first place then?

The city council rep claims he knew nothing about it, and that may be true. Then again you never know with politicians........most of them are lying weasels.

For anyone interested in reading more details, here is a link to the thread. It gives a more accurate description of what is going on. This is what got myself and others into trying to save the house. I especially like what The Mule, post #42 has to say.

Demolition at 5901-09 Ridge Avenue?

It's just hearsay, but I saw reported via your link that the same owner also recently purchased adjacent parcels and has applied for demolition permits for those properties as well, which would make the "structurally unsound" claim dubious, although it could be true because the house is so old. If the new owner already performed renovations on one unit (as the former tenant claims) I'm even more inclined to think that it is not structurally unsound (he would have known soon enough after purchasing it and before undertaking a renovation, which was probably done for a tax write-off or something). I checked out the address using Google Street View and, maybe it was just a rainy day, but the rest of the street looks pretty dreary and fairly commercial.

Presuming it's true that the same buyer recently purchased adjoining properties and plans to demo those I'd say if the building is unsound then it is just a coincidence. If he is planning to demo the others he probably intended all along to combine the parcels as part of a larger development project, maybe some new commercial or higher density residential. If that's the case, then the city or (whoever has jurisdiction) is probably his best friend through all this and is clearing the way and probably dreading some sort of preservation order or investigation from a court.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Clint.

It's just hearsay, but I saw reported via your link that the same owner also recently purchased adjacent parcels and has applied for demolition permits for those properties as well, which would make the "structurally unsound" claim dubious, although it could be true because the house is so old. If the new owner already performed renovations on one unit (as the former tenant claims) I'm even more inclined to think that it is not structurally unsound (he would have known soon enough after purchasing it and before undertaking a renovation, which was probably done for a tax write-off or something). I checked out the address using Google Street View and, maybe it was just a rainy day, but the rest of the street looks pretty dreary and fairly commercial.

Presuming it's true that the same buyer recently purchased adjoining properties and plans to demo those I'd say if the building is unsound then it is just a coincidence. If he is planning to demo the others he probably intended all along to combine the parcels as part of a larger development project, maybe some new commercial or higher density residential. If that's the case, then the city or (whoever has jurisdiction) is probably his best friend through all this and is clearing the way and probably dreading some sort of preservation order or investigation from a court.

Great post!!

[Debbie1125]

Originally Posted by Clint.

It's just hearsay, but I saw reported via your link that the same owner also recently purchased adjacent parcels and has applied for demolition permits for those properties as well, which would make the "structurally unsound" claim dubious, although it could be true because the house is so old. If the new owner already performed renovations on one unit (as the former tenant claims) I'm even more inclined to think that it is not structurally unsound (he would have known soon enough after purchasing it and before undertaking a renovation, which was probably done for a tax write-off or something). I checked out the address using Google Street View and, maybe it was just a rainy day, but the rest of the street looks pretty dreary and fairly commercial.

Presuming it's true that the same buyer recently purchased adjoining properties and plans to demo those I'd say if the building is unsound then it is just a coincidence. If he is planning to demo the others he probably intended all along to combine the parcels as part of a larger development project, maybe some new commercial or higher density residential. If that's the case, then the city or (whoever has jurisdiction) is probably his best friend through all this and is clearing the way and probably dreading some sort of preservation order or investigation from a court.

I am thinking once all of the buildings purchased are demolished, it will most likely be new homes going up. And no it wasn't a rainy day. That particular block is pretty dreary looking with the exception of the Bunting House. The two buildings next to it have been vacant for about 2 1/2 years. One was a pizza restaurant and the other a hair salon. I would assume they were asked to vacate as they are still in business further up on Ridge Avenue.

I think you are correct that the original intent was to knock down all of the buildings. I am angry that this beautiful house might be torn down. What makes me even angrier is the fact that this man lied when he met with the RDC. He gave no indication whatsoever that demolition was in the picture.

The buyer is probably best buddies or connected to someone high up in the city administration. I remember when Rendell was our mayor, there was a developer, Sam Rappaport, who would buy up properties downtown and let them deterioriate. Then when the real estate boom hit he made a fortune.