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. Allen
Lydia Slocum
Carlie 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. Defnitions 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 offcial 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 frst 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
offcials 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 offcial Sustainability Plan (2013) employed triple
bottom line measurements, so we decided to work in accord. We select-
ed and analyzed one month of offcial 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.
Specifcally, 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 months 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 benefts 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 citys 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 inficts
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 offcial. 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 refective 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 offcial. 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 refective 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 signifcant as examples of types of vernac-
ular architecture (place-specifc 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 fats at 1427
Hamilton Avenue, 1424 N. Newstead Avenue and 5359 Evans Avenue
exemplify building types that pervade the entire city. These types defne
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 citys more rare stone-faced buildings from the
twentieth century; and the mixed-use corner building at 5900 Plymouth
Avenue, damaged by fre but to be replaced by a one-story single-use
store.
Among the demolished buildings, perhaps the most important is one that
may elude identifcation 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
fnal 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 citys story one month at a time.
Michael R. Allen
July 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
20
14
25
individual residential
demolition
individual commercial
demolition
garage only demolition
Ranken Tech Area demolition
IKEA project demolition
Demolition by Ward:
17% = ward 4
14.6% = ward 18
9.8% = ward 17
7.3%= ward 22
7.3% = ward 7
4.9 % = wards 1, 23, 27
2.4% = wards 2, 3, 8, 10, 13,
14,19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 1
individual residential
demolition
individual commercial
demolition
garage only demolition
Ranken Tech demolition
IKEA project demolition
Demolition by Neighborhood:
22% = Vandeventer
14.6% = CWE
7.3%= Kingsway East
4.9 % = 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 foor 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
5,208,000
BTU
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 Brilliante
Residential Properties: Individual Demolitions
Neighborhood: JeffVanderLou
Ward: 4
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1-story brick;
single family
968 sf
11,616
731.23 tons
677,600
MBTU
15,004,000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$5,500
$2,090
$270
$186.58
4
10
10%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
5362 Cote Brilliante
Neighborhood: Wells-Goodfellow
Ward: 22
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1905
2-story brick;
single family
2,800 sf
33,600
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
2,120.85
tons
1,960,000
MBTU
43,400,000
BTU
$8,900
$5,690
$1,072.50
$458.96
4
14
7%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
5880 Enright
Neighborhood: West End
Ward: 26
date:
building type:
gross foor 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
1,441,440
MBTU
35,464,000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated assessment
after
demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$10,000
$2,700
$570
$232.86
8
4
25%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
1427 Hamilton
Neighborhood: Hamilton Heights
Ward: 22
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1904
1-story frame
single family
630 sf
7,560
40 tons
441000
MBTU
1953000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$5,000
$6,020
$ 7,915
$484.76
4
22
0%
(house
rebuilt)
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
6221 Hancock
Neighborhood: Lindenwood Park
Ward: 23
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1890
2-story brick;
single family
2,750 sf
33,000
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
2,098 tons
1,925,000
MBTU
42,625,000
BTU
$6,000
$1,690
$187.50
$156.23
4
5
20%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
5016 N Broadway
Neighborhood: Near North Riverfront
Ward: 2
date:
building type:
gross foor 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
16740000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$6,000
$10,760
$ 15,782.50
$843.65
4
14
0% (house
rebuilt)
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
5444 Odell
Neighborhood: Southwest Garden
Ward: 10
5900 Plymouth (Mixed Use)
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$1,750
$16,870
$17,470
$1,417.66
4
0%
(building
rebuilt)
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Neighborhood: West End
Ward: 22
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$0
$2,550
$555
$162.05
4
23
4%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4725 St. Louis Ave
Neighborhood: Kingsway East
Ward: 4
5209 Theodosia
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
property taxes:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
80.96 tons
630000
MBTU

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
estimated change in assessed value: - $ 122,200
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1927
two-story CMU
warehouse (1 foor)
5,321 sf
106,420
3,771.7 tons
2,979,760
MBTU
49,485,300
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$19,000
$61,000
$15,750
$5,601.23
12
9%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Commercial Properties: Individual Demolitions
806 S 3rd Street
Neighborhood: Downtown
Ward: 7
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1935
2-story brick ofce
+ school apartment
building
670 sf
23,790
1,494.86 tons
2321300
MBTU

25885000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$38,900
(no in-
dividual
building
data)
$28.00
(entire
complex)
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
3033 N Euclid
Neighborhood: Kingsway East
Ward: 1
216 N Newstead
Rosati-Kain High School - convent
building. [Image from http://nickidwyer.
typepad.com/]
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
property taxes:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$64,470
(no individ-
ual building
data)
exempt
9
0% (building
rebuilt)
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Neighborhood: Central West End
Ward: 18
1221-25 N Grand Blvd.
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
2013 property
taxes:
# buildings on
block
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$25,500
$10,800
$ 8,100

$9,734.91
5
40%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Neighborhood: Grand Center
Ward: 19
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1965
one-story CMU and
steel gas station
2,372 sf
28,464
tons
1,826,440
MBTU
22,059,600
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
2013 property
taxes:
# buildings on
block
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$5,000
$76,500
$ 83,700
$6,689.87

7
0%
(building
rebuilt)
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4300 S Kingshighway
Neighborhood: Bevo Mill
Ward: 14
Bethlehem Lutheran Church
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
after demolition:
property taxes:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
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 Park
Ward: 3
Garage Only Properties
6931 Marquette
4753-R Mafftt
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 Mafftt
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


Ranken Tech Area Demolitions
4210 W Cook
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
property taxes:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
2,362.36
tons
1,965,600
MBTU
48,360,000
BTU
$2,750
$3,500
$585
no data
8
15
17%
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Neighborhood: Vandeventer
Ward: 18
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1894
2-story brick; single
family
1,976 sf
23,712
FACTS
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
property taxes:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
1,495.57
tons
1,383,200
MBTU
30,628,000
BTU
$2,950
$2,620

$442.50
exempt
4
15
17%
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4212 W Cook
Ward: 18
date:
building type:
gross foor 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
1,663,200
MBTU
40,920,000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
property taxes:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$3,200
$1,670
$442.50
exempt
8
15
17%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4252 W Cook Neighborhood: Vandeventer
Ward: 18
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1930
1 story frame
store
920 sf
13,800
101.3 tons
1508800
MBTU
2852000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$8,900
$12,500
$8,100
$1,153.43
11
9%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4381 Delmar - COMMERCIAL
Ward: 18
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1892
2-story brick;
two family
2,200 sf
26,400
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
1,664.7
tons
1386000
MBTU

34100000
BTU
$7,400
$1,710
$412.50
$157.74
8
12
20%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4331 Evans
Neighborhood: the Ville
Ward: 4
4359 Evans
Ward: 4
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1891
2-story brick;
single family
2,270 sf
27,240
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
property taxes:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
1,718.5 tons
1,589,000
MBTU
35,185,000
BTU
$5,265
$2,130
$540
no data
4
12
20%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4361 Evans
Ward: 4
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1891
2-story brick;
single family
1,590 sf
19,080
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
1,202.5
tons
1,113,000
MBTU
24,645,000
BTU
$5,265
$760
$360
$131.95
4
12
20%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1895
2-story brick;
two family
2,430 sf
29,160
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
property taxes:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
1,835.64
tons
1,530,900
MBTU
37,665,000
BTU
$6,826
$1,920
$1,170
exempt
8
12
9%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
4425 Evans
Neighborhood: Lewis Place
Ward: 4
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
1899
2-story brick;
two family
2,200 sf
26,400
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
after demolition:
max occupancy:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
1,661,5 tons
1,386,000
MBTU
34,100,000
BTU
$6,150
$1,580
$412.50
$151.24
8
4
25%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
1424 N Newstead
Ward: 4
IKEA Project Properties
total assessed value: $1,281,100
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
2013 property
taxes:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$11,275
$647,600
$229,800
$22,339.54
6
100%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
IKEA Project Demolitions
3930-42 Duncan
Neighborhood:Central West End
Ward: 17
48
3935 - 51 Duncan
date:
building type:
gross foor 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
252,433,000
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
property taxes:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$11,275
$292,200
$207,300
no data
6
100%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Ward: 17
4001 Duncan
one of the two buildings at 4001 Duncan
date:
building type:
gross foor 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:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$11,275
$196,900
$ 118,875
$18,168.75
6
100%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Ward: 17
301-305 S Vandeventer
date:
building type:
gross foor area:

total material sf:
material weight:
embodied energy:
demolition energy:
1924 (ofce); 1930,
1985 (warehouses)
1-story frame + 2-sto-
ry brick ofce
17,265
219,930
6,545.75 tons
28,314,600
MBTU
160,564,500
BTU
cost of demolition:
assessment value:
estimated
assessment after
demolition:
2013 property
taxes:
before demolition:
% change in block
density after
demolition:
$11,275
$144,400
$22,650
$13,324.37
3
100%
FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
Ward: 17
Defnitions and Sources
gross foor area = square footage of all foor plates in building,
measured from exterior edge of walls
total sf of materials = gross foor 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 Installation
Opening 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 citys largest manufacturers
of fre 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.
S
k
e
t
c
h

o
f

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
f
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

C
a
r
l
i
e

T
r
o
s
c
l
a
i
r
.
About Preservation Research Offce
Michael R. Allen, Director and Architectural Historian
Lydia Slocum, Principal Project Associate

The Preservation Research Offce (PRO) is a historic preservation and
architectural research frm based in St. Louis, Missouri. PRO provides
services to individuals, neighborhoods, institutions and governments
dealing with the management of historic buildings and sites. Since PROs
founding in 2009, its projects have drawn people not only to understand
and appreciate historic architecture, but also to recognize its inherent
social capital. PROs work has appeared in The Architects Newspaper,
PreservationNation, Next City and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as well as
on National Public Radio.

PROs 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 OFallon 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, Trosclairs 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
buildings lifespan. Trosclair is the recipient of the Riverfront Times
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 Pulitzers 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.

30 Days of Demolition

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

30 Days of Demolition

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

30 Days of Demolition:

Tracking The Social, Economic, And

Вам также может понравиться