30 Days of Demolition

30 Days of Demolition: Tracking The Social, Economic, And Environmental Impact Of Building Demolition Across St. Louis City

An installation at the Pulitzer Arts Foundation by: Michael R. AllenLydia SlocumCarlie Trosclair

July 2014

Layout by Lydia Slocum and Hannah Burtness.

MARFA Dialogues, St. Louis, 2014 3

Table Of Contents

5. Introduction

12. Demolition Map by Ward

13. Demolition Map by Neighborhood

15. Residential Demolitions

27. Commercial Demolitions

35. Garage Only Demolitions

37. Ranken Tech Area Demolitions

47. IKEA Project Demolitions

53. Definitions and Sources

30 Days of Demolition 4


30 Days of Demolition: Lessons from Architectural Loss in St. Louis

Looking Beyond Single Buildings

When a city demolishes a building, it removes more than an architectural form with aesthetic or historic value. It loses building material, human capital, public revenue and an invisible urban psychic energy – all the things that make cities more than collections of single buildings. The project attempts to present those losses to resituate debate of demolition from the politics of lament and the interpretation of official preservation rules to systemic measurement of impact. We pose that vacancy in city buildings (perhaps as many as 6,000, compared to 78,000 in Detroit and 40,000 in Philadelphia) warrants data- and urban character-conscious planning rather than emergency response.

This year, St. Louis contemplates some real changes to how its gov-ernment deals with vacant buildings. Amid the corridors of City Hall, the Board of Aldermen chased the rising sun of summer debating a Capital Improvement Bond issuance that would include publicly-funded historic building stabilization for the first time ever, alongside as much as $10 mil-lion in funding for demolition. Some aldermen have asserted that home repair funds constitute a vacancy-preventing preservation tool, and have fought to add those to the bond issue.

The bond issue has not yet been resolved, but its debate shows that city officials of varying beliefs concur that the vacancy in our building stock is a crucial public policy priority. On the streets, the terrifying handiwork of brick thieves meets the more typical red-plywood-faced holdings of private and public owners either unable or unwilling to rehabilitate their buildings. Demolition relieves the tensions on city blocks at the same time it removes possibilities and unravels indelible physical settings that have survived decades.

We demolish architecturally important buildings. We demolish buildings in historic districts. We demolish buildings that look boring but store memories, households and even jobs. Decisions on the mortality of build-ings seem haphazard and inconsistent, and the resulting streetscapes fragmented rather than rejuvenated. Yet records also show that the city demolished more building stock between 1960 and 1990 than in any oth-


er period, which allows us to make decisions today more carefully since we no longer are in a crisis of rapid population loss.

Project Methodology

We created 30 Days of Demolition as a response to the political percep-tion of demolition in St. Louis. The project created data that measures the impact of each demolition across the month of June 2014 based on the “triple bottom line” of sustainability: the impacts of building loss on social, economic and environmental sustainability.

The City of St. Louis’ official Sustainability Plan (2013) employed triple bottom line measurements, so we decided to work in accord. We select-ed and analyzed one month of official demolition permits obtained from the Building Division of the City of St. Louis, developing models from measurement of impacts based somewhat modestly on available local data.

The project directly responds to the Sustainability Plan, which includes historic preservation and demolition prevention in various objectives under a stated goal in the “Urban Character, Vitality & Ecology” section. Specifically, we are addressing the following statement in one of the objectives: “Increase the information available to the public on preser-vation and demolition proposals in order to increase public feedback.” Public feedback is the ultimate interpreter of what these statistics mean, of course.

For 30 Days of Demolition, we selected one month’s worth of data to of-fer to the public the measurement of a typical month of building loss. We chose June because it preceded the Marfa Dialogues presentations in July 2014, and because it included both typical demolitions (private own-ers applying on their own) and two clusters indicative of both economic development (the IKEA site) and targeted demolition without an econom-ic development plan (the Ranken Technical College demolitions).


We include both of these groups in separate sections, to indicate that they are discrete endeavors that do not measure typical building losses. Also, with the IKEA demolitions, the benefits of the new building and activity mitigate the impact of the losses. One month of demolition in St. Louis does not encompass only net losses, of course, and we disavow any readings of this data that suggest we are chroniclers of decline. We are trying to uncover patterns of loss that continue even amid the grow-ing renewal of the city.

Some of the demolitions in the Greater Ville, Lewis Place and Fountain Park neighborhoods associated with the Ranken Technical College are included here. The College worked with the City of St. Louis to fund demolitions of 26 vacant houses, with no immediate plans for redevelop-ment of the cleared sites. We interpret these demolitions as unmitigated losses, because they remove building stock with no replacement.

The Geography of Depletion

The city’s preservation review framework excludes much of the northern half of the city, and that is where the erasure of common building stock is painfully manifest. North St. Louis has lost buildings for decades, and while the rate of loss is slower, it is starkly higher than the rest of the city. Furthermore, when a building in north St. Louis falls, rarely is it replaced with another.

Among residential demolitions in this study, 15 are located in north St. Louis while two are located in south St. Louis. Of the two south St. Louis demolitions, one preceded a building permit for new construction. None of the demolitions for north St. Louis addresses are connected to new construction, meaning that there is an immediate interval of depletion of housing units, taxable improvements and continuity of urban character. Sometimes, these demolitions are linked to others. In one instance from June 2014, the dwelling at 4425 Evans Avenue follows a rash of dem-olitions on the same block in the last eight years. The demolition inflicts another increment of loss on a block already ravaged, and must be read in that context.


Extrapolation from this data set is impossible, but a survey of demolition permits issued in the last twenty years show that the majority of issued demolition permits in the city are located north of Delmar Boulevard. Perhaps the real “Delmar Divide” is as much racial as it is architectur-al, as the physical density of the north side continues to decrease. The geography of depletion, however, cannot be read as an indictment of any one policy or city official. The accrual of demolitions bears further study of causal factors including population loss, historically racist real estate practices including redlining and restrictive covenants. Abandonment of buildings and neighborhoods are reflective of the abandonment of people and perceived value (or lack thereof) for their quality of life), the implementation of federal programs including Model Cities (1966-1974) and the demands of local aldermen and neighborhood organizations to demolish vacant housing.

Extrapolation from this data set is impossible, but a survey of demolition permits issued in the last twenty years show that the majority of issued demolition permits in the city are located north of Delmar Boulevard. Perhaps the real “Delmar Divide” is as much racial as it is architectur-al, as the physical density of the north side continues to decrease. The geography of depletion, however, cannot be read as an indictment of any one policy or city official. The accrual of demolitions bears further study of causal factors including population loss, historically racist real estate practices including redlining and restrictive covenants. Abandonment of buildings and neighborhoods are reflective of the abandonment of people and perceived value (or lack thereof) for their quality of life), the implementation of federal programs including Model Cities (1966-1974) and the demands of local aldermen and neighborhood organizations to demolish vacant housing.

Beyond Data: Lost Pasts, Lost Futures

Data does not measure the impact of demolition on the psychology of ur-ban experience, or on the ability of the city to present collective memory. What St. Louis lost this June might seem like a minor skin shed (exfo-liation) of buildings, with the exception of the powerful storm-damaged Gothic Revival mass of Bethlehem Lutheran Church (1895; Louis Wess-


becher, architect) in Hyde Park. Yet all of these buildings enwrapped the lives of countless St. Louisans– anonymous to the preparers of this report but well-known to their neighbors. Each building contains embod-ied stories and memories that now lack touchstones.Common buildings isolated through data sets may seem like resources whose destruction is forgivable, but their collective sum adds up to entire strands of feeling and seeing the city. In terms of architectural history, these buildings are most significant as examples of types of “vernac-ular” architecture (place-specific architecture based on the needs of local people). The one-story brick houses at 4725 St. Louis Avenue and 5362 Cote Brilliante Avenue and the two-story two-family flats at 1427 Hamilton Avenue, 1424 N. Newstead Avenue and 5359 Evans Avenue exemplify building types that pervade the entire city. These types define the common experience of city residents in the last 125 years, and are diminished through erasure and geographic reduction.

Other buildings, like the high-style dwelling at 5880 Enright Avenue of the two-story single dwelling in the American Foursquare form at 4212 W. Cook Avenue, exemplify the lives of middle-class families of greater means. Some of the lost buildings are more singular: the gas station at 4381 Delmar Boulevard, which compares to similar buildings being repurposed as cafes and markets in south city; the dwelling at 4210 W. Cook Avenue, one of the city’s more rare stone-faced buildings from the twentieth century; and the mixed-use corner building at 5900 Plymouth Avenue, damaged by fire but to be replaced by a one-story single-use store.

Among the demolished buildings, perhaps the most important is one that may elude identification as such: the cobbled-together complex at 1221-5 N. Grand Avenue, a house with appended front addition. This building last housed Ted Foster and Sons Funeral Home, an African-American family-owned business. Before Foster & Sons, the E.B. Koonce Funeral Home occupied the building. Thousands of St. Louisans received their final celebrations here, through the service of businesses that were com-munity anchors.

In an average month of demolition, St. Louis loses mostly the material that enshrines the most widely-shared collective memory: the places


where most people lived, worked, shopped, and worshipped. Historic preservation expert Ned Kaufman wrote that “history only exists in the telling,” an injunction to not overlook the way we describe the buildings that come on the city chopping block. Part of the history of these build-ings, of course, is the unrealized history of their futures. Our project pres-ents a tentative look at how demolition diminishes the future of the city, in terms of how each loss constrains the social, ecological and economic prosperity that unfolds as we rewrite the city’s story one month at a time.

Michael R. AllenJuly 2014


2

7

9

3

6

5

4

28

1

8

11

22

17

24

27

10

12

19

16

23

18

21

26

13

15

2014

25

individual residential demolition

individual commercialdemolition

garage only demolition

Ranken Tech Area demolition

IKEA project demolition

Demolition by Ward:

17% = ward 414.6% = ward 189.8% = ward 177.3%= ward 227.3% = ward 74.9 % = wards 1, 23, 272.4% = wards 2, 3, 8, 10, 13, 14,19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 1

individual residential demolition

individual commercialdemolition

garage only demolition

Ranken Tech demolition

IKEA project demolition

Demolition by Neighborhood:

22% = Vandeventer14.6% = CWE7.3%= Kingsway East4.9 % = West End, Lindenwood Park, Soulard, Dutchtown, Bevo Mill

North City neighborhoods: 56.2%Midtown neighborhoods: 17%South City neighborhoods: 26.8%



Individual Residential Properties

total material weight lost: 13,039 tons

total embodied energy: 14,322,140 MBTU

total demolition energy: 252,929,000 BTU

total cost of demolition: $57,150

total assessed value: $51,080

estimated change in assessed value: - $6,357


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1884

1-story frame; two family residential

1,680 sf

20,160

152.33 tons

1,176,000 MBTU

5,208,000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:

estimated assessment after

demolition:

2013 property taxes:

max occupancy:

# buildings on block before demolition:

% change in block density after

demolition:

$6,200

$1,580

$540

$147.88

8

4

25%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

3716-18 Cote BrillianteResidential Properties: Individual Demolitions

Neighborhood: JeffVanderLouWard: 4


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1-story brick; single family

968 sf

11,616

731.23 tons

677,600MBTU

15,004,000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:


max occupancy:



demolition:

$5,500

$2,090

$270

$186.58

4

10

10%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions

5362 Cote Brilliante Neighborhood: Wells-GoodfellowWard: 22


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1905


2,800 sf

33,600

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:


max occupancy:



demolition:

2,120.85 tons

1,960,000MBTU

43,400,000BTU

$8,900

$5,690

$1,072.50

$458.96

4

14

7%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions5880 Enright Neighborhood: West End

Ward: 26


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1910

2-story brick two family

2,288 sf

27,456

1,728.7 tons

1,441,440MBTU

35,464,000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:


max occupancy:



demolition:

$10,000

$2,700

$570

$232.86

8

4

25%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions1427 Hamilton Neighborhood: Hamilton Heights

Ward: 22


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1904

1-story frame single family

630 sf

7,560

40 tons

441000 MBTU

1953000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:

estimated assessment after demolition:


max occupancy:



demolition:

$5,000

$6,020

$ 7,915

$484.76

4

22

0% (house rebuilt)

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions6221 Hancock Neighborhood: Lindenwood Park

Ward: 23


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1890


2,750 sf

33,000

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:



max occupancy:



demolition:

2,098 tons

1,925,000MBTU

42,625,000 BTU

$6,000

$1,690

$187.50

$156.23

4

5

20%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions5016 N Broadway Neighborhood: Near North Riverfront

Ward: 2


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1898

one-story brick single family

1,080 sf

12,960

820.32 tons

756000 MBTU

16740000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:



max occupancy:



demolition:

$6,000

$10,760

$ 15,782.50

$843.65

4

14

0% (house rebuilt)

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions5444 Odell Neighborhood: Southwest Garden

Ward: 10


Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions5900 Plymouth (Mixed Use)

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1907

2-story brick; mixed use residen-tial-commercial

2,200 sf

26,400

3,822.85 tons

14737600 MBTU

78120000 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:


max occupancy:



demolition:

$1,750

$16,870

$17,470

$1,417.66

4

0% (building rebuilt)

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Neighborhood: West EndWard: 22


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1904

one story brick; single family + garage

1,948 sf

25,470

1,443.97 tons

577500 MBTU

11625000 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:



max occupancy:



demolition:

$0

$2,550

$555

$162.05

4

23

4%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions4725 St. Louis Ave Neighborhood: Kingsway East

Ward: 4


Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions5209 Theodosia

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1892

2-story frame; single family

900 sf

10,800

FACTS

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:

property taxes:

max occupancy:



demolition:

80.96 tons

630000MBTU 2790000 BTU

$7,800

$1,120

$360

no data

4

14

7%

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Neighborhood: Kingsway West Ward: 1



Individual Commercial Properties

total material weight lost: 95,831.5 tons

total embodied energy: 1,261,056,500 MBTU

total demolition energy: 10,690,592,400 BTU


total assessed value: $232,600

estimated change in assessed value: - $ 122,200


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1927

two-story CMU warehouse (1 floor)

5,321 sf

106,420

3,771.7 tons

2,979,760MBTU

49,485,300BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:




demolition:

$19,000

$61,000

$15,750

$5,601.23

12

9%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Commercial Properties: Individual Demolitions806 S 3rd Street Neighborhood: Downtown

Ward: 7


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1935

2-story brick office + school apartment building

670 sf

23,790

1,494.86 tons

2321300MBTU 25885000 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:




demolition:

$38,900

(no in-dividual building data)

$28.00 (entire complex)

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Commercial Properties: Individual Demolitions3033 N Euclid Neighborhood: Kingsway East

Ward: 1


Commercial Properties: Individual Demolitions

216 N Newstead

Rosati-Kain High School - convent building. [Image from http://nickidwyer.typepad.com/]

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1960s

2-story brick school building

14,620 sf

182,750

7,888.71 tons

20,321,800 MBTU

226,610,000 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:

property taxes:



demolition:

$64,470

(no individ-ual building data)

exempt

9


FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Neighborhood: Central West EndWard: 18



1221-25 N Grand Blvd.

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

brick 3 stories + 1 story rear addition (1221) one story brick (1225)

16,535 sf

215,895

23,025.22 tons

22,021,600 MBTU

256,292,500 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:


# buildings on block

before demolition:


demolition:

$25,500

$10,800

$ 8,100 $9,734.91

5

40%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Neighborhood: Grand CenterWard: 19


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1965

one-story CMU and steel gas station

2,372 sf

28,464

tons

1,826,440MBTU

22,059,600 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:


# buildings on block

before demolition:


demolition:

$5,000

$76,500

$ 83,700

$6,689.87

7


FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Commercial Properties: Individual Demolitions4300 S Kingshighway Neighborhood: Bevo Mill

Ward: 14


Bethlehem Lutheran Church

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1895

brick church; estimated 6 stories

13,220 sf

951,840

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


property taxes:



demolition:

59,651 tons

1,199,318,400 MBTU

9,994,320,000 BTU

$52,000 $23,300

$2,850

exempt

6

17%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL


2145 Salisbury Neighborhood: Hyde ParkWard: 3



Garage Only Properties






6931 Marquette

4753-R Maffitt neighborhood: Kingsway East ward: 4

6931 Marquette neighborhood: Lindenwood Park ward: 23

8424-R Minnesota neighborhood: Patch ward: 11

4977-R Plover neighborhood: Walnut Park East ward: 27

5944-R Sherry neighborhood: Walnut Park West ward: 27

5280-R Westminster Place neighborhood: Central West End ward: 28

Garage Demolition Only

garage at 4753 Maffitt

2215-19 S 7th Street neighborhood: Soulard ward: 7

1818-20 S 8th Street neighborhood: Soulard ward: 7

3631-R Alberta neighborhood: Dutchtown ward: 25

3663-R Cleveland neighborhood: Shaw ward:

3817-R Eiler neighborhood: Bevo Mill ward: 13

3444-R Keokuk neighborhood: Dutchtown ward: 20


Ranken Tech Area Properties

total material weight lost: 14,038.55 tons



total cost of demolition: $48,706 total assessed value: $28,390



Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4210 W Cook

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1894

2-story brick two family

3120 sf

37,440

FACTS

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:

property taxes:

max occupancy:



demolition:

2,362.36tons

1,965,600MBTU

48,360,000BTU

$2,750

$3,500

$585

no data

8

15

17%

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Neighborhood: VandeventerWard: 18

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1894


1,976 sf

23,712

FACTS

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:

property taxes:

max occupancy:



demolition:

1,495.57 tons

1,383,200MBTU

30,628,000BTU

$2,950

$2,620

$442.50

exempt

4

15

17%

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4212 W Cook Neighborhood: Vandeventer

Ward: 18


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1894

2-story brick; two family

2,640 sf

31,680

1,997.26 tons

1,663,200MBTU

40,920,000 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


property taxes:

max occupancy:



demolition:

$3,200

$1,670

$442.50

exempt

8

15

17%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4252 W Cook Neighborhood: Vandeventer

Ward: 18

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1930

1 story frame store

920 sf

13,800

101.3 tons

1508800MBTU

2852000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:





demolition:

$8,900

$12,500

$8,100

$1,153.43

11

9%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4381 Delmar - COMMERCIAL Neighborhood: Vandeventer

Ward: 18


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1892


2,200 sf

26,400

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:



max occupancy:



demolition:

1,664.7 tons

1386000MBTU 34100000 BTU

$7,400

$1,710

$412.50

$157.74

8

12

20%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4331 Evans Neighborhood: the Ville

Ward: 4


Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4359 Evans Neighborhood: Vandeventer

Ward: 4

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1891


2,270 sf

27,240

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


property taxes:

max occupancy:



demolition:

1,718.5 tons

1,589,000 MBTU

35,185,000BTU

$5,265

$2,130

$540

no data

4

12

20%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL


Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4361 Evans Neighborhood: Vandeventer

Ward: 4

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1891


1,590 sf

19,080

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:



max occupancy:



demolition:

1,202.5tons

1,113,000MBTU

24,645,000BTU

$5,265

$760

$360

$131.95

4

12

20%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1895


2,430 sf

29,160

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


property taxes:

max occupancy:



demolition:

1,835.64 tons

1,530,900MBTU

37,665,000BTU

$6,826

$1,920

$1,170

exempt

8

12

9%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Ranken Tech Area Demolitions4425 Evans Neighborhood: Lewis Place

Ward: 4


date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

1899


2,200 sf

26,400

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

cost of demolition:

assessment value:



max occupancy:



demolition:

1,661,5 tons

1,386,000MBTU

34,100,000BTU

$6,150

$1,580

$412.50

$151.24

8

4

25%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Ranken Tech Area Demolitions1424 N Newstead Neighborhood: Vandeventer

Ward: 4


IKEA Project Properties





total assessed value: $1,281,100



date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1976 (1930), 1981 (1942)

2-story frame (3930) small frame garage (3942)

28,000 sf

628,800

2,860 tons

45,920,000 MBTU

86,800,000 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:

estimated assess-ment after

demolition:




demolition:

$11,275

$647,600

$229,800

$22,339.54

6

100%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

IKEA Project Demolitions3930-42 Duncan Neighborhood:Central West End

Ward: 17

48


IKEA Project Demolitions3935 - 51 Duncan

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1907, 1950, 1955, 1987

2-story brick (3935-41); 1-sto-ry frame (3951) warehouse

32,390 sf

394,810

10,572.25 tons

53,119,600 MBTU

252,433,000BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:

property taxes:



demolition:

$11,275

$292,200

$207,300

no data

6

100%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

Neighborhood:Central West End Ward: 17


IKEA Project Demolitions4001 Duncan

one of the two buildings at 4001 Duncan

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1956, 1965

1-story frame utility buildings (2)

4,756 sf

57,072

353.577 tons

7,799,840 MBTU

14,743,600 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:




demolition:

$11,275

$196,900

$ 118,875

$18,168.75

6

100%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL



IKEA Project Demolitions301-305 S Vandeventer

date:

building type:

gross floor area:

total material sf:

material weight:

embodied energy:

demolition energy:

1924 (office); 1930, 1985 (warehouses)

1-story frame + 2-sto-ry brick office

17,265

219,930

6,545.75 tons

28,314,600MBTU

160,564,500 BTU

cost of demolition:

assessment value:


demolition:




demolition:

$11,275

$144,400

$22,650

$13,324.37

3

100%

FACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL




Definitions and Sources

gross floor area = square footage of all floor plates in building, measured from exterior edge of walls

total sf of materials = gross floor area + total square footage of wall area (exterior), approximated based on number of stories in the building

material weight = estimation based on materials weights per square foot in:

1. “Structural Wood Design: A Practice-Oriented Approach Using the ASD Method.” (Abi Aghayere, Jason Vigil, Published Online: 25 JAN 2008) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/9780470259795.app1/pdf

2. Boise Cascade Engineered Wood Products ”Tech Note GE-1.”** weight estimates do NOT include basements**

embodied energy and demolition energy = data formulated with online calculator (http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org/), using square footage calculations and construction type

cost of demolition = provided in City demolition report

assessment values = provided in the City of St. Louis’ online Address and Property Information Search

estimated assessment values after demolition = By comparing occupied and vacant lots in various neighborhoods, a 25% decrease in land assessment was established for demolition. If no building is certain to be rebuilt, the improvments assessment goes to $0; if a building is being rebuilt the improvements either stayed constant (commercial) or increased by 50%, and the land assessment increases by 25%.

property taxes = for most recent paid year, provided in the City of St. Louis’ online Address and Property Information Search


max occupancy = assuming 4 people/family (residential properties only)

# of buildings on block before demolition = gathered via google maps, with ‘block’ being one side of the street between two sequential cross streets. This number does not delineate between occupied and unoccupied buildings on the block.

% change in block density after demolition = difference in number of buildings on the block before and after this month of demolition



About the InstallationOpening at the PXSTL site on August 2, 2014

As a visual representation and memorializing marker, a site sensitive brick installation will outline the footprint of the residential property at 3719 Washington Boulevard that stood from 1879 to 1971 on the vacant lot across from the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts. The exterior pattern represents a common basket-weave pattern found on the elevations of St. Louis homes. The installation works to thread our most recent losses in June with the loss of the historic dwelling at 3719 Washington Boulevard over 40 years ago. The site is intertwined with the economy of St. Louis architecture beyond the life of the house that stood there. James B. Green, an industrialist who had founded the Laclede Firebrick Manufacturing Company in 1869, expanded the existing house on the site into a 3-story mansion in 1879. Laclede Firebrick Company was one of the city’s largest manufacturers of fire brick used to line industrial hearths and furnaces, chimneys of all kinds and smokestacks. In 1907, while still living at this address, Green merged his company with the Christy Fire Clay Company to become the Laclede-Christy Clay Products Company. While the presentation of data from our current year provides a microscopic view of demolition, examination of the site on Washington Avenue creates a wider, contextually-informed view. The site reminds us that the onslaught of demolition of historic city architecture is nearly historic itself, and that its remainders are tangible spaces that often still form urban voids. The large PXSTL site and parking lot to the east are testament to the visual emptiness that demolition on the block created.


Ske

tch

of p

ossi

ble

inst

alla

tion

confi

gura

tion

by C

arlie

Tro

scla

ir.


About Preservation Research Office

Michael R. Allen, Director and Architectural HistorianLydia Slocum, Principal Project Associate The Preservation Research Office (PRO) is a historic preservation and architectural research firm based in St. Louis, Missouri. PRO provides services to individuals, neighborhoods, institutions and governments dealing with the management of historic buildings and sites. Since PRO’s founding in 2009, its projects have drawn people not only to understand and appreciate historic architecture, but also to recognize its inherent social capital. PRO’s work has appeared in The Architect’s Newspaper, PreservationNation, Next City and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as well as on National Public Radio. PRO’s projects in the city have included cultural resource surveys and historic district nominations in Fox Park, The Ville, Southwest Garden, JeffVanderLou and St. Louis Place neighborhoods as well as an ongoing effort to list the O’Fallon neighborhood in the National Register of Historic Places. PRO currently is working for the City of East St. Louis to develop a historic-asset-based strategy for redeveloping its downtown. Through professional practice and community service, PRO strives to help communities utilize historic preservation planning tools to serve the interest of economic growth and demolition prevention. PRO was principal manager of the Pruitt Igoe Now competition, an open call for ideas to guide the future of the site of the former Pruitt and Igoe housing projects north of downtown. The competition, which announced its winning entries in June 2012, attracted 346 submissions from around the world and constituted an open-source public planning process for a site that is both a richly-storied cultural site and 33-acre vacant lot. Website: preservationresearch.com


About Carlie Trosclair

Carlie Trosclair (b. New Orleans, LA) is an installation artist based in St. Louis, Missouri. Trosclair earned an MFA from the Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts at Washington University in St. Louis, a BFA from Loyola University New Orleans, and is a Fellow of the Community Arts Training Institute (MO). Approached through a lens of reordering and rediscovery, Trosclair’s site sensitive installations create new topographies and narratives in both abandoned buildings and galleries that highlight the structural and decorative shifts that evolve over a building’s lifespan. Trosclair is the recipient of the Riverfront Time’s Mastermind Award (2012), Creative Stimulus Award (2013), Regional Arts Commission Artist Support Grant (2013), and the Great Rivers Biennial (2014).

Website: carlietrosclair.com


About MARFA Dialogues

The Pulitzer Arts Foundation, Ballroom Marfa and the Public Concern Foundation are bringing Marfa Dialogues to the St. Louis area to examine the ways in which art can serve as a catalyst for unexpected collaboration. This experiment is aligned with the Pulitzer’s current exhibition, Art of Its Own Making, which features artists who examine materials, environment, and how generative elements impact the works of art they create. Marfa Dialogues is supported by the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation.

The Pulitzer Arts Foundation provides an intimate space for exploring the arts, fosters community engagement, and inspires its audiences to think differently about art and its relationship to their lives. The Pulitzer is dedicated to diverse public programming and extended exhibition presentations that link the arts, design, and architecture to create multilayered, sensory experiences. Through its history of collaboration and public engagement, the Pulitzer has become an integral part of the Grand Center arts district and cultural landscape in St. Louis.

Marfa Dialogues was co-founded in 2010 by Fairfax Dorn of Ballroom Marfa and Hamilton Fish of The Public Concern Foundation (PCF). The debut program was conceived as a symposium to broaden public exploration of the art, politics, and culture of the US-Mexico border region that Ballroom Marfa calls home. In 2012, Marfa Dialogues expanded to consider the science and culture of climate change. Ballroom Marfa and PCF joined with The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation and over 30 program partners in 2013 for Marfa Dialogues/New York: two months of events continuing the examination of climate change science, environmental activism, and artistic practice. For more information on past Marfa Dialogues, please visit ballroommarfa.org/dialogues.


Date post:	27-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	preservationresearch
View:	83 times
Download:	2 times

30 Days of Demolition

Documents