Mixed-use
DOB: 1893
Died: June 2008
Cause of death: One of the few large commercial buildings left in the neighborhood, this building was open to the weather and there was severe brick damage along the roof line and compromised framing. The building was vacated by the City in 2003 and condemned in April 2005. Parts of the awning were removed before collapse, but no other work was done by the owner. The case went to criminal court, but was dismissed due to want of prosecution (e.g. not pursued). A potential buyer stepped in, but apparently passed. The owners continued to try to shop the building, but the project was too much for anyone to tackle. It was declared a public nuisance in June 2007 and finally razed by the City.
deja vu all over again
49 minutes ago
3 comments:
Does "there was severe brick damage along the roof line and compromised framing" warrant demolition?
Are there no builders that could not fix something as simple as that? You seem to accept this explanation readily. Is it because the government pushes this explanation and you aren't either willing or able to question these claims. These building just aren't that complicated in fact, they are extremely simple.
The truth is that the city doesn't want properties that can be used by the poor. The areas of these demolitions are areas that can't get the rents needed to make the effort worthwhile so the city steals these properties so that someday things might change and someone may be willing to invest in new construction without having to pay for demolition and land.
Dieter Schmied
Dieter -
I live in a 130-year old brick home. Let me tell you, brick work isn't cheap.
Couple expensive repairs with a property in a poor neighborhood and what do you get? A property that either sits rotting or is torn down. No one wants to invest. Sorry.
I respect old homes and believe that you can't get any quality construction like these old places, but would you rather have a place that falls apart while drug dealers set up shop inside instead?
Dieter,
First of all, the tone of your message suggests that I somehow support the wholesale destruction of our City's built environment, especially housing that could be rehabbed to house lower-income people.
I am simply presenting the facts as they are documented by the City's Division of B&I. Perhaps your accusatory tone would be better directed at the people responsible for these buildings being razed, rather than at the messenger.
The thing is, the City isn't stealing these properties. If they raze a structure, they don't automatically gain title to the land. That land is still owned by the offender.
I also think you need to lay some blame on the property owners, who are unwilling to perform the work for the very reasons you mention - they cannot recoup that money in rents, so why bother. Either that, or they are poor themselves.
Finally, I find it funny that I see your socialist rants all over local blogs, yet you distrust government so much. Strange.
Post a Comment