YOUR GUIDE TO THE TWIN CITIES

Global Search
Friday February 10, 2012
« Stimulus update: $115 million to modernize Fort Snelling Whipple Federal Building should make it plenty green
Fast-talking figure in investment scheme pleads guilty to securities violations »

“Distressed urban neighborhoods” among 10 endangered places, preservationists say

Posted on May 8th, 2009 – 3:54 PM
By James Shiffer

1195bush1.jpgNobody thinks the current glut of vacant homes targeted for demolition, like St. Paul’s 1195 Bush Avenue above, are the equivalent of Minneapolis’s dearly departed Metropolitan Building or New York City’s majestic Penn Station. Yet the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota has taken note of the cumulative effect of demolitions to list “distressed urban neighborhoods” among the 10 “places” most at risk. Here’s how the historic preservation group explains it:

Throughout Minnesota, communities are razing vacant and foreclosed homes to prevent vandalism, criminal activity, and blight. Typically the homes that are demolished are not historic architectural gems. But with limited regulatory review, we may be losing structures that, while perhaps not architecturally significant, are otherwise historically or culturally significant. These houses are essential to the urban fabric that instills neighborhoods with a sense of place and history.

The problem of foreclosed and vacant older homes is experienced statewide, but is most acute in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Minneapolis has plans to use $5.7 million in federal funds to demolish at least 320 properties in the city. Saint Paul plans to raze at least 100 homes in the coming months. As troublesome as this trend is, good alternatives are few. Even when properly secured, houses that are unoccupied and unheated quickly deteriorate. Crime and blight, which negatively impact community safety and property values, have neighbors justifiably concerned.

One alternative to demolition is to rehabilitate these houses and sell them to homeowners or neighborhood investors. Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have programs to purchase, rehabilitate, and sell vacant homes, but the funding cannot stretch far enough to meet the need. Our urban neighborhoods run the risk of looking like gap-toothed, grimacing jack-o-lanterns unless we find tools to support rehabilitation instead of demolition.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm and is filed under Disposable cities. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

15 Responses to ““Distressed urban neighborhoods” among 10 endangered places, preservationists say”

» Next comment page »

  1. DGB Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    I can’t see how an old (1920’s), out dated home historically or culturally significant.

    These homes were built a long time before proper insulation, wiring, plumbing, heating or A/C. To update an 80 yr old, wood frame home is a waste of taxpayer money. What whould be better would be to raze several blocks of homes, and divide the land into bigger lots, so people could build new homes. Let’s face it these old homes aren’t going to last forever!

  2. jim Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Spoken like a true suburbanite DGB.

    Just because your ‘hood has no character or history doesn’t mean the rest of us want to live in your cookie cutter wasteland.

  3. DGB Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Whatever gives you the idea that old worn out homes are going to last forever? Many of these homes are too small, inadequate closets, poorly designed, tiny bedrooms, don’t make good use of space, alleys that impossible to navigate in the winter. Minneapolis is filled with such homes. Some day they are going to have to replace these homes - why not start now. Perhaps if there were better housing, middle class people may return to Minneapolis.

  4. Chris Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 8:16 am

    Well said Jim. We should tear down all these turn of the century homes and “upgrade” our neighborhoods with those beautiful suburban style homes. You know the ones, vinyl windows wrapped with anemic vinyl casing and surrounded by vinyl siding. Maybe a mass produced brick facade, just facing the street of course. Nicely tacky vinyl doors with that imitation leaded glass and brass colored hardware that’s so plentiful at Menards. Interiors all trimmed in 3 inch millwork, no sills. Crown molding was just a waste anyway, right? 8 inch, three piece base, plinth blocks, 5 inch window and door casing with crown moldings, what a waste. Built in buffets and coffered ceilings are incredible waste of space. Speaking of waste, how about we tear down those awful mom and pop stores and restaurants? No economy of scale there. Let’s shut them down while were at it so we can get some more Super Americas and Applebee’s. Now there’s something we could be proud of.

    Why is it that those with the least amount of taste seam so devoted to spreading their simplicity everywhere? Can’t you just be happy that Apple Valley and Burnsville exist for you? Please, stay out of our neighborhoods and our debates. We don’t expect you’ll be able to understand.

  5. Chris Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 8:18 am

    Sorry Jim, I was responding to DGB.

  6. DGB Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Chris: By ignoring the facts you contribute to decreasing the quality of housing. Quality housing is the use of space, layout, attached garages, accessibility, proper sized rooms for todays living, closets, storage - not the woodwork - that probably has 6 coats of paint on it. It’s my guess you could strip that woodwork and find out it was paint grade. Likewise a built-in buffet does nothing for quality of living.

    As an engineer, when I hear someone like you say: “They don’t build them like that anymore.” I think to myself: “Yeah, there are now laws against it.” Structurally and liveability wise many of these homes are extinct - and nobody should plow anymore money into them!

    When you build a new home, you can chose any mill work you want. From my experience Marvin or Anderson windows are available in wood with painted aluminum exteriors. These windows have Low-E glass and fold in for cleaning. AFAIK, you can still chose from wood, brick, stone exteriors.

    Take a look at that home in the picture with the chain-link fence in the front yard, and the yucky siding, and tiny windows. Tell me what’s so romantic about this dump?

    Your overemotional response fails to adress the needs of people who deserve quality housing.

  7. jean Says:
    May 12th, 2009 at 10:04 am

    “”jim Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Spoken like a true suburbanite DGB.

    Just because your ‘hood has no character or history doesn’t mean the rest of us want to live in your cookie cutter wasteland.”"

    Here! HERE! These old houses have Character! Something
    the burbs don’t have.

    America = the throw away country! Sick of it.

  8. Isaac Says:
    May 12th, 2009 at 10:13 am

    I used to live in Minneapolis (near 38th and Hiawatha) and now live in Burnsville, so I think I can offer a balanced perspective on this debate. It is true that neighborhoods in Minneapolis often have a larger amount of “character” than suburban neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it is also true that many of the houses in Minneapolis are small and poorly designed with terrible insulation and extremely high utility/maintenance costs. The kitchen of the house I used to live in had one electrical outlet and we had to use a power strip and extension cords just to power a basic suite of kitchen appliances. It’s unfortunate that modern suburban development lacks character, but this is a problem that should be addressed by improving architectural standards and urban planning. Leaving 100-year-old dinosaur houses with $400/mo heating bills standing for the sake of preserving “character” doesn’t seem like the most intelligent idea to me. And is it just me, or are most city dwellers resentful of suburbanites? I’ve lived in both places and liked both just fine. Where you choose to live is a matter of your personal preference. I left the city because I couldn’t find a decent-sized house in good shape in my price range. Someday I may move back, but in the mean time I don’t like my quiet Burnsville neighborhood full of trees, parks, ponds, and running trails referred to as a “wasteland.”

  9. DGB Says:
    May 12th, 2009 at 10:14 am

    It’s really difficult and frustrating to have a discussion with people who refuse to dialog. Instead they just repeat, repeat, repeat, emotional statements. No acknowledgement of the facts, no response to a logical arguement, just a mantra.

    Is this a product of our Public School system?

  10. Isaac Says:
    May 12th, 2009 at 10:26 am

    DGB - I share your frustration. I often try to provoke reasonable debate on Star Tribune forums, and in response to my carefully worded arguments I am called a hypocritcal fascist. I think most people would rather live in their own bubble world where all of their opinions are true than engage in a true debate. Incidentally, I am also an engineer so I share your affinity for fact-based argument.

    I do agree that there are many beautiful homes in Minneapolis and St. Paul, but most of them have been thoroughly (and expensively) updated and remodeled to be in compliance with modern codes and modern lifestyles. Many other homes were never updated and are practically falling apart. If a person were to hire a good architect and a good builder, the old homes could be replaced with a newwer, better-constructed home of similar style that blends quite well into the existing neighborhood.

» Next comment page »

Subscribe to Whistleblower

Learn more about RSS

The Star Tribune investigates

Categories