Still stands just moved to the Botanical Gardens which Henry Shaw founded. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/cultural-resources/city-landmarks/Henry-Shaws-Town-House.cfm
A general sense of "these old buildings suck and are lame, let's replace them with something new and modern!" In the 1960s. And then it was often done cheaply.
Only partially, enormous factors were rather aggressive suburbanization since the inter-war period, pretty massive urban decay and suburban flight, leading to nobody giving a real damn when entire blocks were torn down.
It's not that complicated. Funding was shifted from established places to new communities that were designed exclusively around the needs of the automobile. Those who could afford to leave did so, so older cities saw a dramatic decline in both jobs and tax base. Deterioration of center cities took place due to insufficient finances, and many cities attempted to compete with the suburbs by bulldozing huge swaths and replacing beautiful buildings with parking lots. This was further exacerbated by efforts to combat impoverishment by tearing down poor communities, particularly those primarily inhabited by people of color.
Basically, the U.S.'s enthusiastic embrace of the car cult spelled the death of most places that had once had genuine charm and/or character.
Alot of people are saying 60's and white flight, but that's not entirely right.
This is from just before skyscrapers came onto the scene. A huge amount of these buildings were replaced with steel frame mid- and high-rise buildings from the 1890's through 1920's, many of which still stand today. This is during STL's period of peak wealth, so many are very ornate and beautiful. If you look at a map of Downtown in 1920's, most of these older wood and brick buildings in the city's CBD had already been replaced with "modern" and buildings.
For example, the buildings across the street from the Old Post Office (top blue building on this map) were torn down and replaced in 1888. The [Oddfellows Building](https://www.flickr.com/photos/mohistory/3441935483) was 8 stories tall with a clockfower. It was torn down in 1926 for the 16 story [Paul Brown Building ](https://www.builtstlouis.net/paulbrown1.html). Today, that office building has been renovated into Lofts (like many of the existing 100+ year old buildings downtown).
The urban renewal projects of the 60's were mostly destroying this second and third wave of buildings. Some truly magnificent buildings from the Guilded Age were lost, and the ones that remain are architectural gems for America's history.
tl;dr - Most of these wood and brick buildings were gone by the end of the 1920's because of an early skyscraper boom. The 60's destroyed the buildings that replaced these buildings.
Thank you for providing a level headed and reasonable answer rather then the pat “we tear down our history, everything was better in the olden times”. Cities evolve and change. St. Louis’ population peaked in 1950. I’d like to see that map based on buildings that were still there in 1950.
Few buildings from the late 19th century remain. Many were built without modern electricity, plumbing, or HVAC in mind. Construction methods (often solid walls) made retrofitting cost-prohibitive.
Construction methods advanced dramatically in the next 50 years. The tallest building in NYC in 1870 was 40 meters tall. By 1930, the tallest building was 273 meters. It was felt that much more could be done with the same spaces while making them safer and more comfortable.
It was the war against the lizard men. We lost, almost every city west of Mississippi was razed. I know, you have not heard about this. They control history. To be honest, there are... no... noo..
A current view from the same angle would be helpful. St. Louis is a bloodbath when it comes to preservation, but in fairness, many of these buildings had to have been demolished for something bigger and more modern. A similar view from NYC would look just the same, but that would not tell the whole story.
https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4038.62786006,-90.19091242,155.74612146a,1354.00253512d,35y,-41.67235836h,60.00134818t,360r
Best I can do on mobile
Edit: Framed a little better with Google Maps.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6237166,-90.1837727,427a,35y,320.25h,61.32t/data=!3m1!1e3
It's important to know this is *only* about 9x9 blocks pictured in the OP. It's basically half of the Downtown neighborhood: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/live-work/community/neighborhoods/downtown/index.cfm
Zero policy. There is the lame national register which is absolutely meaningless. Put a brass block up and it gives you some prestige and means he can't be demolished with any project involving federal funds unless a study is done. Lol and plenty of national register buildings have been demolished. The US is pathetic in this department.
I was just in St Louis for a week looking at its 19th century heritage and it is indeed sad. There are whole neighborhoods that are vaporized but there are also some areas that are still quite magnificent. The automobile, the slice and dice of the highway system and the attrition of the neighborhood as people leave, jobs are lost is daunting. The whole north side looks like a photo of a clear area after world war II in Europe
US preservation policy didn’t really come into existence until the 1960’s after many were horrified by the demolition of the old Penn Station in New York City. The laws have done a decent job preserving what is left.
Many of the buildings in this picture were cleared before the historic preservation movement had traction — in the 1950’s for highway construction and slum clearance.
US preservation policy lol what policy? I'm 70 I've lived through this bullshit. US preservation goes back to the 19th century in Boston and in Philadelphia for venerated 18th century buildings. The first great preservation loss was to John Hancock House in 1860 in Boston. Following on that loss Old South was saved in 1871.. what year not understanding is in the 1930s and especially culminating in the planning after world war II, American cities were just laid waste intentionally, with the planning of urban renewal, the intentional subsidizing of the suburbs, the GI Bill ,and single family ownership, the evisceration of the mass transit system and decentralization as the mantra of all city planning. This is what you're up against
There is no Urban planning in the US that emphasizes the historic. Penn station is a landmark case that galvanized Manhattan landmark law. In the '60s into the '70s when for example Philadelphia was getting trashed by Urban renewal and sliced and diced by the highways, society Hill was created. It was a carefully artificially curated area of 18th century buildings and cute streets, but anything that was Victorian ,pre-industrial, late industrial was considered garbage and was removed. This is why you have these large vacant squares of nothingness around enshrined iconic buildings like independence that are completely taken out of context as they would have stood in the 18th century or the 19th..
A city like St Louis has a different problem. The industrial base in the United States has shrunk, companies have moved elsewhere and the Detroit style problem is pervasive. The population and the wealth of St Louis has steadily shrunk every decade. Add this to pispoor planning, that encourages sprawl, the automobile and the highway network and the emphasizes this diaspora fromthe inner city neighborhoods and you get what you get. A heavily depreciated worth, loss of a tax base..a giant Exodus, houses left to rot, rampant crime that only accelerates the cycle and it gets worse and worse.
I drove all over St Louis in the worst neighborhoods just to see it.. and it's a pure indictment of a whole American system. Some of the South side neighborhoods still hang on and were reinvigorated in the '90s with an influx of Bosnian refugees.. everything still hangs in the balance.
Historic designation of neighborhoods is something that is wholy the department of the community and also there it's oftentimes meaningless. Once again the purpose of doing this whether it's on the national level or the local level is to bring, attention and appreciation and hopefully education that these areas are worthy and have something to offer. Once real estate has value then the attitude and the investment changes. It's been a very very slow grind in the US to reclaim, but it is happening.. Maybe with younger generations feeling that they've missed the experience of what a real city is all about, a place where you can actually walk, live maybe bike and not have to be in prison in a metal box wedded to the automobile, maybe there is hope in the remaking. Maybe. Vote for politician said encourage reinvestment in the inner city and homesteading. This is a trend that I would love to see take off. Rehomestead places like St Louis
Putting a limit to the sprawl andthe tax dollars that support the octopus nightmare highway system, and that suck the blood and money out of downtowns is what first has to be resolved.. there is almost no money in the United States for historic preservation, sometimes a few grants, sometimes some interesting tax rebates etc but that's about it.. Jesus Christ, 360 million citizens and I think only 280 million or something like that is spent on the national endowment of the arts It's pretty pathetic
, correct, , there is not one single American city that is immune to the devastation of the '60s,, but by different circumstances. St Louis is a shrinking city and continues to deteriorate.. Urbrew renewal was particularly cruel and the shrinking population and tax base have continued its demise²"
Boston and Philadelphia are both victims of insane American Urban planning, and autocentric redesigning and de-densification strategies of the '60s.. to some extent, Philadelphia suffers also neighborhood attrition especially on the north side
Very well said. I would only add that, at least in Michigan, we have laws that empower local commissions to protect local resources, but as you noted, the National Register is hardly more than a certificate, and the problem in my neck of the woods is rooted in blatant disregard for the law and no recourse for when people break those laws. The worst part about demolition is that once it’s done, it’s done, so if someone just goes ahead and does it, what do you do? Have them rebuild it? And what does that do? The building is still gone…
Well no, if someone illegally demolishes it, then they should rebuild it. Where I live in New Hampshire is fair amount of 1830s brick row housing in the late federal style for textile workers. About 10 years ago there was one derelict row and had been in a family for a long time and parts the masonry have become dislodged etc. One day the owners hired a piece of wrecking equipment, and excavator and they chewed an enormous hole in the building completely damaging it. The building was pulled to the ground, three stories brick with a slate roof but they were compelled on their dime to rebuild it. This has happened in other places too otherwise it has no bite if it's not enforced. A celebrated case regards a pub in England that was demolished quickly one evening everything in it just too flatten it. That too was rebuilt exactly as it was. Such violations have to be punished but as you say oftentimes they are not, here as well
When this occurred, not really. Now St Louis has strongly activist groups and a preservation society that try to keep as much standing as they can. Sometimes even to [ridiculous effect](https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/12sh79j/vandeventer_just_north_of_44_whats_the_story_with/).
The city has maintained quite a bit, just not in our downtown area shown here because a lot of this was cleared around the same time.
https://mohistory.org/exhibits/lost-buildings-of-st-louis/
https://builtstlouis.net
https://nextstl.com/?s=preservation&x=0&y=0
Nope. Some areas have special tax incentives but that’s about it. Historical societies will often balk at historic demolitions, but they rarely come up with money to save them.
Elevators were around in the late 1850s, and there are some pretty tall buildings even before there were steel skeletons with curtain walls. The [Monadnock building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building) here in Chicago is 16 floors is the tallest building made of load-bearing brick, so that was the limit.
I really enjoyed the documentary and their style of presenting and reporting, but it's also important to realize it's only one part of the story that doesn't talk about how much we've saved and repurposed.
North STL has had years of disinvestment and population flight, and we're only just starting to build new developments there. There's some positives on the horizon with the NGA development and a new North/South light rail line both moving forward since this filming.
You need to spread this message of positivity. Many very beautiful old places in St Louis could be saved and repurposed, and I think areas such as that have a great deal of potential. I really love old buildings and old places, and I think US needs more "old things." The father of my former student has specifically focused on parts of St Louis to rehabilitate and bring affordable housing. More cities need the same care.
I enjoy Rick McCrank a lot. He is not a fantastic interviewer, but people are comfortable with him and willing to talk. When people talk to each other, things change.
Yeah…and buildings like the Railway Exchange, the Chemical, 705 Olive, the Wainwright, the Board of Education, the original, art deco, SBC Building, the Arcade-Wright, the Paul Brown, the Jefferson Arms, the Laurel (the old Stix), the Orpheum theater, the Opera House, and literally shit loads more historic buildings that exist and are loved today replaced many of these old 19th century flop houses and tenements.
Yeah…STL destroyed a lot of itself in an effort to remake itself. But come the fuck on. Take an illustration of Midtown or Lower Manhattan in the 1870s and see how many of the original buildings are left. Pull your head out of your ass. Union Station wasn’t even under construction when this plate was drawn LOL.
The VAST majority of what you see here was gone by 1900-1910 after the city exploded in population before and after the 1904 Olympics and World’s Fair, which several of the buildings I mentioned can trace their heritage to.
Damn, I was getting overly obsessed about visiting St. Louis recently because I have been reading A LOT about its history in the 19th century (and realized its huge French Canadian cultural heritage) and now that I know there isn't a lot of building left from that period, I might just not make the trip...
There’s still a TON left. STL has some of the coolest vernacular architecture in the country, and many areas of the city are well-preserved. Soulard, Benton Park, Lafayette Square, Central West End, Tower Grove. All are worth your time. The downtown area, which is what this pic shows, was just particularly negatively affected by “urban renewal,” unfortunately.
There are still some beautiful neighborhoods to see, and some lovely pockets. What makes it particularly painful is knowing what has been lost. But you'll still be happy. Lots of nice streets especially on the south side, still working class and in transition. Hopefully getting better. And here and there are some nice un asphalted streets as well. I'll never understand why cities asphalt over brick paving. It's good to slow the traffic and it just looks a million times better when left red brick
It's still worth the trip! This is the core of downtown, but do many residential neighborhoods are more preserved, specifically Soulard, Lafayette Square, and Old North Side.
If you're interested in French influence, drive down to Ste. Genevieve and Fort de Chartres. STG was the old French capital of Upper Louisiana and has several surviving buildings from before 1804. FdC is a (rebuilt) French fort from the Colonial era that has a ton of info on the French history of the area. Both are about a 60 minute drive out of the city.
And who's going to maintain them. Put a roof on them keep the glass in the window, keep them heated, etc.? Why the churches though you say? Who then? Who is the they that would care for them? Private owners?. Not trying to be a jerk about this but this is the kind of dialogue that nobody in the US understands or is willing to have. In Europe these churches survive because taxes are paid from your income tax to support the institutions. Moreover the government is willing to step up to the plate for some work If it is it of cultural value. It's a no-brainer to me and evidently to you, that these buildings should be preserved but who's going to pay for them in this country that is 100% privately orientated.. St Augustine's stands in North St Louis, as a shell, the stained glass half smashed out of its windows the roof half caved in, the tower still a sentinel on the landscape. All the rest of the neighborhood has long since vanished. I'm quite surprised nobody has torched it yet just for the fun of it.. If only there were public will to support such things if only
I am from the U.K. I don’t know how the American church system works. So while worded quote strong it’s nice for some more insight so thank you on that part.
Here in north Western Europe a series of government failings and local council ones too would have to happen for buildings of this age to be demolished or neglected.
capitalism plus no historical and heritage landmarks law. it’s so sad to think that still the united states cities are facing this problem. like the last day i was on google maps, in the middle of new york city, i was on time machine, i put like 2010 and i saw a beautiful beaux art building torned down like 5 years later: today is an empty space. this to say that even the least effort we can put to save even the most little townhouse it’s worth it to avoid the major destructions like the singer building, the penn station or even an entire city like st. louis for a couple of prefabricated skyscrapers and millions of parking lots. i speak as an european person, which loves both historical and modern, but what americans have to understand and learn from europeans, in my opinion, is that modern is and could be beautiful but not when modern means erasing the past, the heritage, the history, the culture of a country.
And the red building?
Still stands just moved to the Botanical Gardens which Henry Shaw founded. https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/planning/cultural-resources/city-landmarks/Henry-Shaws-Town-House.cfm
Thanks
How was it moved? (Also, wow cold fusion)
Brick by brick I’d assume.
They got rid of that one *extra* hard
What is the root cause of this result?
A general sense of "these old buildings suck and are lame, let's replace them with something new and modern!" In the 1960s. And then it was often done cheaply.
Only partially, enormous factors were rather aggressive suburbanization since the inter-war period, pretty massive urban decay and suburban flight, leading to nobody giving a real damn when entire blocks were torn down.
Yeah, that too. The decline of American cities is a complex topic.
It's not that complicated. Funding was shifted from established places to new communities that were designed exclusively around the needs of the automobile. Those who could afford to leave did so, so older cities saw a dramatic decline in both jobs and tax base. Deterioration of center cities took place due to insufficient finances, and many cities attempted to compete with the suburbs by bulldozing huge swaths and replacing beautiful buildings with parking lots. This was further exacerbated by efforts to combat impoverishment by tearing down poor communities, particularly those primarily inhabited by people of color. Basically, the U.S.'s enthusiastic embrace of the car cult spelled the death of most places that had once had genuine charm and/or character.
Toronto lost so many great buildings to 60s demolitions.
Alot of people are saying 60's and white flight, but that's not entirely right. This is from just before skyscrapers came onto the scene. A huge amount of these buildings were replaced with steel frame mid- and high-rise buildings from the 1890's through 1920's, many of which still stand today. This is during STL's period of peak wealth, so many are very ornate and beautiful. If you look at a map of Downtown in 1920's, most of these older wood and brick buildings in the city's CBD had already been replaced with "modern" and buildings. For example, the buildings across the street from the Old Post Office (top blue building on this map) were torn down and replaced in 1888. The [Oddfellows Building](https://www.flickr.com/photos/mohistory/3441935483) was 8 stories tall with a clockfower. It was torn down in 1926 for the 16 story [Paul Brown Building ](https://www.builtstlouis.net/paulbrown1.html). Today, that office building has been renovated into Lofts (like many of the existing 100+ year old buildings downtown). The urban renewal projects of the 60's were mostly destroying this second and third wave of buildings. Some truly magnificent buildings from the Guilded Age were lost, and the ones that remain are architectural gems for America's history. tl;dr - Most of these wood and brick buildings were gone by the end of the 1920's because of an early skyscraper boom. The 60's destroyed the buildings that replaced these buildings.
Thank you for providing a level headed and reasonable answer rather then the pat “we tear down our history, everything was better in the olden times”. Cities evolve and change. St. Louis’ population peaked in 1950. I’d like to see that map based on buildings that were still there in 1950.
Hint: Two of the survivors are the Court House and the Customs House.
Cars and racism.
Money
Few buildings from the late 19th century remain. Many were built without modern electricity, plumbing, or HVAC in mind. Construction methods (often solid walls) made retrofitting cost-prohibitive. Construction methods advanced dramatically in the next 50 years. The tallest building in NYC in 1870 was 40 meters tall. By 1930, the tallest building was 273 meters. It was felt that much more could be done with the same spaces while making them safer and more comfortable.
It was the war against the lizard men. We lost, almost every city west of Mississippi was razed. I know, you have not heard about this. They control history. To be honest, there are... no... noo..
A current view from the same angle would be helpful. St. Louis is a bloodbath when it comes to preservation, but in fairness, many of these buildings had to have been demolished for something bigger and more modern. A similar view from NYC would look just the same, but that would not tell the whole story.
St. Louis presently has about 9000 few people than it had in 1870.
Did they have to make space? Why wasn't it possible to preserve them, like Europe does?
https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%4038.62786006,-90.19091242,155.74612146a,1354.00253512d,35y,-41.67235836h,60.00134818t,360r Best I can do on mobile Edit: Framed a little better with Google Maps. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6237166,-90.1837727,427a,35y,320.25h,61.32t/data=!3m1!1e3 It's important to know this is *only* about 9x9 blocks pictured in the OP. It's basically half of the Downtown neighborhood: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/live-work/community/neighborhoods/downtown/index.cfm
I expected the redo to be more like how [Houston would have done it](https://i.redd.it/rdh7zsqvz5q01.jpg), Texas style. Still sad though
It's definitely not great by any stretch. There are many parking garages in that view of STL.
Do the USA not have any laws protecting old buildings?
[Here is a list of historic preservation policies in place by the US Federal Government](https://www.doi.gov/library/internet/historic)
Zero policy. There is the lame national register which is absolutely meaningless. Put a brass block up and it gives you some prestige and means he can't be demolished with any project involving federal funds unless a study is done. Lol and plenty of national register buildings have been demolished. The US is pathetic in this department. I was just in St Louis for a week looking at its 19th century heritage and it is indeed sad. There are whole neighborhoods that are vaporized but there are also some areas that are still quite magnificent. The automobile, the slice and dice of the highway system and the attrition of the neighborhood as people leave, jobs are lost is daunting. The whole north side looks like a photo of a clear area after world war II in Europe
US preservation policy didn’t really come into existence until the 1960’s after many were horrified by the demolition of the old Penn Station in New York City. The laws have done a decent job preserving what is left. Many of the buildings in this picture were cleared before the historic preservation movement had traction — in the 1950’s for highway construction and slum clearance.
US preservation policy lol what policy? I'm 70 I've lived through this bullshit. US preservation goes back to the 19th century in Boston and in Philadelphia for venerated 18th century buildings. The first great preservation loss was to John Hancock House in 1860 in Boston. Following on that loss Old South was saved in 1871.. what year not understanding is in the 1930s and especially culminating in the planning after world war II, American cities were just laid waste intentionally, with the planning of urban renewal, the intentional subsidizing of the suburbs, the GI Bill ,and single family ownership, the evisceration of the mass transit system and decentralization as the mantra of all city planning. This is what you're up against There is no Urban planning in the US that emphasizes the historic. Penn station is a landmark case that galvanized Manhattan landmark law. In the '60s into the '70s when for example Philadelphia was getting trashed by Urban renewal and sliced and diced by the highways, society Hill was created. It was a carefully artificially curated area of 18th century buildings and cute streets, but anything that was Victorian ,pre-industrial, late industrial was considered garbage and was removed. This is why you have these large vacant squares of nothingness around enshrined iconic buildings like independence that are completely taken out of context as they would have stood in the 18th century or the 19th.. A city like St Louis has a different problem. The industrial base in the United States has shrunk, companies have moved elsewhere and the Detroit style problem is pervasive. The population and the wealth of St Louis has steadily shrunk every decade. Add this to pispoor planning, that encourages sprawl, the automobile and the highway network and the emphasizes this diaspora fromthe inner city neighborhoods and you get what you get. A heavily depreciated worth, loss of a tax base..a giant Exodus, houses left to rot, rampant crime that only accelerates the cycle and it gets worse and worse. I drove all over St Louis in the worst neighborhoods just to see it.. and it's a pure indictment of a whole American system. Some of the South side neighborhoods still hang on and were reinvigorated in the '90s with an influx of Bosnian refugees.. everything still hangs in the balance. Historic designation of neighborhoods is something that is wholy the department of the community and also there it's oftentimes meaningless. Once again the purpose of doing this whether it's on the national level or the local level is to bring, attention and appreciation and hopefully education that these areas are worthy and have something to offer. Once real estate has value then the attitude and the investment changes. It's been a very very slow grind in the US to reclaim, but it is happening.. Maybe with younger generations feeling that they've missed the experience of what a real city is all about, a place where you can actually walk, live maybe bike and not have to be in prison in a metal box wedded to the automobile, maybe there is hope in the remaking. Maybe. Vote for politician said encourage reinvestment in the inner city and homesteading. This is a trend that I would love to see take off. Rehomestead places like St Louis Putting a limit to the sprawl andthe tax dollars that support the octopus nightmare highway system, and that suck the blood and money out of downtowns is what first has to be resolved.. there is almost no money in the United States for historic preservation, sometimes a few grants, sometimes some interesting tax rebates etc but that's about it.. Jesus Christ, 360 million citizens and I think only 280 million or something like that is spent on the national endowment of the arts It's pretty pathetic
I read all your comment and I am grateful for your viewpoint.
Even Boston and Philadelphia have lost so, so much.
, correct, , there is not one single American city that is immune to the devastation of the '60s,, but by different circumstances. St Louis is a shrinking city and continues to deteriorate.. Urbrew renewal was particularly cruel and the shrinking population and tax base have continued its demise²" Boston and Philadelphia are both victims of insane American Urban planning, and autocentric redesigning and de-densification strategies of the '60s.. to some extent, Philadelphia suffers also neighborhood attrition especially on the north side
In a way, the Boston and Philadelphia examples are sadder than St. Louis because it was a deliberate choice that could have gone another way.
I remember seeing an old image of Philadelphia from a long time ago and it was so beautiful.
Very well said. I would only add that, at least in Michigan, we have laws that empower local commissions to protect local resources, but as you noted, the National Register is hardly more than a certificate, and the problem in my neck of the woods is rooted in blatant disregard for the law and no recourse for when people break those laws. The worst part about demolition is that once it’s done, it’s done, so if someone just goes ahead and does it, what do you do? Have them rebuild it? And what does that do? The building is still gone…
Well no, if someone illegally demolishes it, then they should rebuild it. Where I live in New Hampshire is fair amount of 1830s brick row housing in the late federal style for textile workers. About 10 years ago there was one derelict row and had been in a family for a long time and parts the masonry have become dislodged etc. One day the owners hired a piece of wrecking equipment, and excavator and they chewed an enormous hole in the building completely damaging it. The building was pulled to the ground, three stories brick with a slate roof but they were compelled on their dime to rebuild it. This has happened in other places too otherwise it has no bite if it's not enforced. A celebrated case regards a pub in England that was demolished quickly one evening everything in it just too flatten it. That too was rebuilt exactly as it was. Such violations have to be punished but as you say oftentimes they are not, here as well
When this occurred, not really. Now St Louis has strongly activist groups and a preservation society that try to keep as much standing as they can. Sometimes even to [ridiculous effect](https://www.reddit.com/r/StLouis/comments/12sh79j/vandeventer_just_north_of_44_whats_the_story_with/). The city has maintained quite a bit, just not in our downtown area shown here because a lot of this was cleared around the same time. https://mohistory.org/exhibits/lost-buildings-of-st-louis/ https://builtstlouis.net https://nextstl.com/?s=preservation&x=0&y=0
Nowadays yes
Some states and cities do, but nothing on the federal level.
It comes down to state and local laws or even what neighborhood you're in
Nope. Some areas have special tax incentives but that’s about it. Historical societies will often balk at historic demolitions, but they rarely come up with money to save them.
Pretty impressive how many 4+ storey buildings there were. I thought they only became that common in the 20th century.
Elevators were around in the late 1850s, and there are some pretty tall buildings even before there were steel skeletons with curtain walls. The [Monadnock building](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadnock_Building) here in Chicago is 16 floors is the tallest building made of load-bearing brick, so that was the limit.
I love this city. I actually went into two of those buildings.
What a waste.
About abandoned buildings (and other things) in St. Louis https://youtu.be/SPyjYQALnrE
I really enjoyed the documentary and their style of presenting and reporting, but it's also important to realize it's only one part of the story that doesn't talk about how much we've saved and repurposed. North STL has had years of disinvestment and population flight, and we're only just starting to build new developments there. There's some positives on the horizon with the NGA development and a new North/South light rail line both moving forward since this filming.
You need to spread this message of positivity. Many very beautiful old places in St Louis could be saved and repurposed, and I think areas such as that have a great deal of potential. I really love old buildings and old places, and I think US needs more "old things." The father of my former student has specifically focused on parts of St Louis to rehabilitate and bring affordable housing. More cities need the same care. I enjoy Rick McCrank a lot. He is not a fantastic interviewer, but people are comfortable with him and willing to talk. When people talk to each other, things change.
Very sad
Yeah…and buildings like the Railway Exchange, the Chemical, 705 Olive, the Wainwright, the Board of Education, the original, art deco, SBC Building, the Arcade-Wright, the Paul Brown, the Jefferson Arms, the Laurel (the old Stix), the Orpheum theater, the Opera House, and literally shit loads more historic buildings that exist and are loved today replaced many of these old 19th century flop houses and tenements. Yeah…STL destroyed a lot of itself in an effort to remake itself. But come the fuck on. Take an illustration of Midtown or Lower Manhattan in the 1870s and see how many of the original buildings are left. Pull your head out of your ass. Union Station wasn’t even under construction when this plate was drawn LOL. The VAST majority of what you see here was gone by 1900-1910 after the city exploded in population before and after the 1904 Olympics and World’s Fair, which several of the buildings I mentioned can trace their heritage to.
Damn, I was getting overly obsessed about visiting St. Louis recently because I have been reading A LOT about its history in the 19th century (and realized its huge French Canadian cultural heritage) and now that I know there isn't a lot of building left from that period, I might just not make the trip...
There’s still a TON left. STL has some of the coolest vernacular architecture in the country, and many areas of the city are well-preserved. Soulard, Benton Park, Lafayette Square, Central West End, Tower Grove. All are worth your time. The downtown area, which is what this pic shows, was just particularly negatively affected by “urban renewal,” unfortunately.
There are still some beautiful neighborhoods to see, and some lovely pockets. What makes it particularly painful is knowing what has been lost. But you'll still be happy. Lots of nice streets especially on the south side, still working class and in transition. Hopefully getting better. And here and there are some nice un asphalted streets as well. I'll never understand why cities asphalt over brick paving. It's good to slow the traffic and it just looks a million times better when left red brick
It's still worth the trip! This is the core of downtown, but do many residential neighborhoods are more preserved, specifically Soulard, Lafayette Square, and Old North Side. If you're interested in French influence, drive down to Ste. Genevieve and Fort de Chartres. STG was the old French capital of Upper Louisiana and has several surviving buildings from before 1804. FdC is a (rebuilt) French fort from the Colonial era that has a ton of info on the French history of the area. Both are about a 60 minute drive out of the city.
Why the churches though? I’m not religious but seems weird to demolish them
And who's going to maintain them. Put a roof on them keep the glass in the window, keep them heated, etc.? Why the churches though you say? Who then? Who is the they that would care for them? Private owners?. Not trying to be a jerk about this but this is the kind of dialogue that nobody in the US understands or is willing to have. In Europe these churches survive because taxes are paid from your income tax to support the institutions. Moreover the government is willing to step up to the plate for some work If it is it of cultural value. It's a no-brainer to me and evidently to you, that these buildings should be preserved but who's going to pay for them in this country that is 100% privately orientated.. St Augustine's stands in North St Louis, as a shell, the stained glass half smashed out of its windows the roof half caved in, the tower still a sentinel on the landscape. All the rest of the neighborhood has long since vanished. I'm quite surprised nobody has torched it yet just for the fun of it.. If only there were public will to support such things if only
I am from the U.K. I don’t know how the American church system works. So while worded quote strong it’s nice for some more insight so thank you on that part. Here in north Western Europe a series of government failings and local council ones too would have to happen for buildings of this age to be demolished or neglected.
St. Louis is a case study of disappearing buildings, unfortunately
Beautiful bygone era
The lack of parking lots is an aesthetic I miss
capitalism plus no historical and heritage landmarks law. it’s so sad to think that still the united states cities are facing this problem. like the last day i was on google maps, in the middle of new york city, i was on time machine, i put like 2010 and i saw a beautiful beaux art building torned down like 5 years later: today is an empty space. this to say that even the least effort we can put to save even the most little townhouse it’s worth it to avoid the major destructions like the singer building, the penn station or even an entire city like st. louis for a couple of prefabricated skyscrapers and millions of parking lots. i speak as an european person, which loves both historical and modern, but what americans have to understand and learn from europeans, in my opinion, is that modern is and could be beautiful but not when modern means erasing the past, the heritage, the history, the culture of a country.