Why don't they demolish the old buildings? (St. Louis: squatters, lawyer)

[IDASpaceman]

Does anyone know if there is a demolishing schedule or revitalization plan for the old burnt out buildings around the STL city area?

[STLCardsBlues1989]

If they demolished every building that became vacant over the years most of Downtown would be gone, and last decade's Renaissance probably would not have happened.

There is a time for demolition, especially if there is a safety risk. However, a building being abandoned does mean that it should be immediately demolished. If it hangs on long enough it may be reused. There's no reason to rush to demolition.

Of course, each situation is different.

[1greatcity]

They DO demolish old burnt-out and abandoned buildings. This has went on for decades, leaving some city blocks with few, if any, remaining buildings. (Just check out Google satellite images of the JeffVanderLou area for proof.)

I have no idea if there is an actual "demolishing schedule". But I'd bet that Paul McKee has that info.

[flynavyj]

While i do agree that they DO demolish old buildings, i think you'll have a hard time proving that allowing those vacant, burntout buildings to stand does anything positive, or that the areas would be better off if those vacant, rundown, good for nothing buildings had stayed as opposed to the vacant lot that's left in it's place. The issue (as i see it) is that nothing is done with the vacant lot! If new homes are built on the lots, you gain a tax base, if the lot sits vacant, you're lucky to collect the taxes on it, and i'd wonder how many years of back taxes would equal out to the lawyer going after the individuals who owe the taxes on the property?

My best guess on how to fix these areas, you auction the abandoned property off for pennies (litterally) with a requirement that the individual who purchases the property either disposes or restores the building which is situated on it, within a given time-frame. If the renovation is underway after (x) number of months, so be it, if not, you fine the individual. After a couple fines the person will decide to demolish the old building, and sell the old brick for scrap. Require the lot to be kept up to a certain standard (grass heights, plant trimmings, etc) as with any investment, the goal of the property owner will be to either sell the property at a profit (the cost of purchasing/maintaining/and removing the building from the property) to the next available individual, or to make money on the property by building a residence, business, etc....Both situations are win win for the city as it will remove eyesores, and bring in individuals with an actual plan to revitalize an area in desperate need!

Because i pass them everyday on I-70, here are two photos to illustrate what i see on a daily commute.

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr275/flynavyj/Burn_out_old_north_2.jpg (broken link)
This is an abandoned business/warehouse in north st. louis which could potentially be renovated at some point...but the current "warzone" around it could use improving first.

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr275/flynavyj/Burnt_out_old_north.jpg (broken link)
This is a residence that would need demoed. The wall on the East side, second floor of the building has totally come down, and i think the remainder of the wall isn't far behind. Besides being an eyesore for the neighborhood, the property presents a danger to other neighborhood residents, as well as a danger to city employees (fire, police, paramedics) called to assist any individuals within the residence (squatters, the homeless, etc) in case of a fire. Just two quick examples without getting off the main road .

[IDASpaceman]

^ my original point exactly.

[latetotheparty]

Habitat for Humanity is making inroads into these communities...... they replace these uninhabitable and unsalvageable buildings with well-built, energy efficient homes sold to people who need a hand up .... not a hand out.....

that said, i would hate to see st. louis turn into a city like houston, where anything over about 40-50 years old is considered old and outdated and then destroyed for that which is in fashion now......

[Caldus]

flynavyj, I used to see those buildings every day when I was commuting to my old job in St. Louis. I was always thinking to myself why won't anyone do anything with these buildings? St. Louis has so much potential.

[DespicableMe]

Old buildings -> ?? -> Renovation -> Profit

[flynavyj]

Old building, crumbling foundation, and questionable structural integrity = money pit.

Not saying there aren't buildings that are worth renovating in the city, there's plenty....there are also plenty of buildings that a wrecking ball would fix, allowing you to use the brick to build a patio, or barbecue pit .

[STLCardsBlues1989]

There is a difference between small, residential neighborhood buildings and large commercial buildings. If ten to fifteen years ago St. Louis tore down the vacant buildings Downtown, half of Downtown would now be gone. At the same time, tearing down a building is not always more profitable than leaving it standing, especially if it's just a vacant lot.

I'm okay with demolition, but only if it's not done too often.