All posts in the topic Another ill-conceived demolition order (Short link)
Summary
- There are 12 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Wizard Marks at Oct 14 03:06 UTC
While I understand that most people envision a burned-out shell when they think
of the homes slated for demolition in this city, my own image is of a
once-grand Victorian with sunburst brackets and fretwork and inlaid flooring
and archways.
That's because I think of 1406 Fremont Avenue N.
While this home is admittedly rough shape, I've seen worse that were saved,
some ultimately transformed into masterpieces.
So what is the city thinking???
First of all, razing this house is extremely wasteful. There's this thing
called "embodied energy" which represents all the energy used to mine, mill,
fabricate, transport materials and construct the house. Demolition not only
wastes all of that embodied energy, but burns more in the process of tearing it
all down again.
To say nothing of the garbage debris which then must be disposed of. (Most of
which is technically re-usable, but that's a tangent for another day.)
Second of all, length of vacancy (the most common comment I get from the city
when I inquire about properties such as this) has little to do with the
salvage-ability of a given house. In particular, 1406 Fremont has persevered
for AT LEAST 108 years, if not (as I suspect) more like 118-120 years. The
fact that it has been boarded since 2005 does not in any way render it beyond
salvage.
Also, part of the reason why it's been boarded that long is that the bank set
an unreasonably high initial price for this property. As recently as May of
2007 the house was listed at a whopping $243,000. There's no way it would have
made financial sense for someone to rehab it at that price. However, today
it's listed at the much more agreeable number of $29,900.
This is not the time to be demolishing structures which are salvageable. With
the current economic conditions and the growing concern for the environmental
impact of our actions, this house should be left to become someone's home.
It's cheap enough now that someone could actually buy it and fix it.
The greenest building is an existing building.
To say nothing of the fact that its demolition will mean one more rip in the
historic architectural fabric of the Old Highland neighborhood.
1406 Fremont should be saved.
Connie Nompelis
Central Neighborhood
What is the city thinking? - everyone know that city inspections is
shacked up with developers and certain favored trades contractors. So
some developer wants the lot for something and city inspections is
doing it's part of the job to steal the lot at less than the lots
market value. In the final analysis there will be an under-the-table
kick back (like a Ford Crown Victoria to the inspector and nice bucks
to the supervisor/manager). That is the way the city operates - all
the blab about corruption control is just election time hype.
John Ferman
<email obscured>
Beyond the obvious non-green aspects of filling landfills with houses that
could have been updated and renovated, don't forget the fact that renovation of
a home is labor-intensive vs the commodity-intensive new construction. With
the construction industry in such a major slowdown and commodity prices at near
record highs, wouldn't it make sense to prioritize labor-intensive projects
over commodity-intensive projects?
Unfortunately there are still enough people that are willing to blame the
neighborhood infrastructure for crime problems, etc. that some see destruction
as a good thing when it is in fact wasteful and foolish.
I was working in East Bethel last week, and there was an amazing master piece
of a house on the block. The neighbors told us the guy build the entire home
from salvaged materials! It took him 2 years, but the hose is impressive. It
looks like a master builders blueprint, and not a house build from salvaged
materials. But sure enough, the neighbor said this guy was out there everyday
pulling nails from old lumber and reusing it.
Just looking at the amount of waste that happens when we tear off an old roof,
I can't imagine why someone would scrap a whole house! That's insane.
"Demolition" is uneducated. Where is the "de-construction and re-use" company?
If one does not exist, I stand to offer this service.
HOME RECYCLING, the way of the future. Green intelligence.
I still don't own a home BTW, and am personally insulted every time our city
destroys perfectly inhabitable dwellings. Not to mention it's going to get cold
again soon and there are homeless war veterans who would protect these
neighborhood assets via occupation.
" Where is the "de-construction and re-use" company? If one does not exist, I stand to offer this service." It does! http://www.greeninstitute.org/programs/reuse-deconstruction.htm
Constance is absolutely right about this! In the wreckage that is the
sub-prime mortgage market (birthed and nurtured by Republican tolerance of
predatory lending schemes) there is a great opportunity for Minneapolis to
recover some of its grand housing stock by rehabilitating stressed
properties. These old houses that are well built and designed are part of
the character and quality of our city. There are enough of them - at an
affordable price - that the city can capture for rehabilitation. These
should not be turned into rental housing but should be an opportunity for
the city to help stabilize neighborhoods by encouraging re-habs and
renovation - not destruction.
Jim Bernstein
Fulton
Well, I don't know if the Fremont is this one... http://overnorth.blogspot.com/2008/09/am-i-crazy.html Connie is doing very good work advocating for these houses and using the internet to share information about them. Both Connie and David are Healy block residents...and both have and are continuing to work very hard on rehabbing and maintaining their old houses. They fight every day to preserve their houses and face plenty of risks and danger....there are at least two houses on the Healy Block in play now...everyone on the block will be advocating for those houses and searching for neighbors to will join their community... How many foreclosures are there? Over 2000 in Hennepin County this year http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/foreclosure/MortgageForeclosureMaps.asp and not all the vacant are foreclosed...some are vacant because of rental issues or condition.... With these incredible numbers...any overworked Inspections staff, could look a a vacant house and seeing nothing but violations and perhaps have incentives or orders to increase the demos... as Steve Brandt's article discussed... FORECLOSED HOMES DEMOLISHED IN MINNEAPOLIS; Razing trouble to rebuild the city; About 100 properties may fall to the wreckers as officials work to stabilize neighborhoods by demolishing boarded houses. STEVE BRANDT. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Aug 5, 2008. pg It's clear that individuals in neighborhoods need to come together and look at vacant houses in their neighborhood to evaluate their rehab potential... Maybe the local chapters of home inspectors, or building code officials could volunteer to do a code assessment.... Maybe the folks who know about all those programs for homebuyers and loans for home fixers could make sure potential buyers are fully aware of their resources....and the neighborhood foreclosure tours could continue.... it's been great to see those and read of successes like those reported about North Minneapolis in the Strib last Saturday! And follow Connie's example and get those houses on the web with descriptions and photos. We all need to see the houses that should be saved. A certain moorish house on Portland...I pray will be one of them. There are programs like the City's Home Ownership Works, and the Northside Housing Resource Center, Hennepin County, church groups, veterans groups...even Habitat for Humanity that rescue homes....sure they'd probably prefer to rescue newer homes that don't need lots of work...but a case to rehab a solid, classic older home could be made and won. Which brings us to this news...funding for NRP http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/20080916NRPFinancing_Comments.asp Funding for housing and even development projects was available to NRP once upon a time....is there enough money left or will there be any new money provided to get empty houses owner occupied and rehabbed? NRP was once a major player in house rescue... can it be again? As for the Green Institute, and their store and deconstruction program... I subscribed to their mailing list for onsite pre-demo sales and some of the stuff available was absolutely incredible.... BUT all of it was custom made for the house it was in...taking it all out, getting it to a house that was going to reuse the stuff and then getting it all into that house must have been labor intensive very expensive and definitely not a self sustaining enough program financially to save the Green Institute which recent articles report is troubled. Reuse is great but keeping the house intact and rehabbing it is even better. Demo should be a last resort and the thought that some of the materials could be recycled (how much actually is) should not be a justification for demoltion. Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
While it's easy to sit on the side lines and make arbitrary comments on the
demolition of the houses in Minneapolis, I'd like to fill in the group as to
some pertinent facts (I am currently working on this project, so I can
enlighten you on what's actually involved):
Because of the age of these houses, they contain lead-based paints,
asbestos-contaminated floor tiles and insulation, and the vast majority of the
houses have black mold in them from being left vacant for so long- remedying
these caustic and deadly conditions in these houses is exremely expensive and
cost prohibitive to anyone but a fairly wealthy investor. Prior to being placed
on the demolition lists, these houses where available for a very long time to
any potential investor to inspect and possibly bid on, provided they where
willing to do these massive renovations.
I have to agree that, from the outside, some of these old Victorian-style
houses would seem like worthwhile investments for anyone with time and a little
elbow-grease (not to mention having handy-man skills to complete most of the
renovations themselves). But once you understand what's involved in what it
takes to fully rehabilitate a house with the forementioned conditions, you'll
understand the reasons for demolition.
I would encourage anyone who is thinking of renovating a house (which,
sometime in the not-too-distant future, may find itself placed on a future
demolition list), to check on the list of houses up for forclosure, and/or
through the H.U.D. listings of houses which are currently available (the H.U.D.
homes are typically houses which had portions of the mortgage paid off but for
one reason or another are currently in foreclosure or are in the beginning
stages of foreclosure). You'll be surprised of the "diamonds-in-he rough that
are on these lists.
The forementioned houses are the ones which may still be worth saving, and if
there is a way to post these listings to as many investors or potential home
buyers as possible, you can prevent alot of beautiful houses from falling prey
to what is currently happening to the houses being demolished.
Thanks for your time.
AN addendum to my last posting:
So far, the wood in all of the houses that have been torn down so far has all
been rotten (dry rot), unusable for any type of reuse whatsoever.
I agree with Ray as far as the roof renovations and the waste it entails. So
many times, I see roofing contractors taking asphalt shingles to the landfill
when they can be recycled. Bituminus Roadways (as an example) takes old
shingles and recycles them into the asphalt used in highway construction. They
don't charge for this service (land fills charge by the ton to dump the
shingles there), which should be an incentive for recycling in and of itself
(This type of recycling should really be encouraged and made a much bigger
issue than it is currently).
Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure who's "sitting on the sidelines and mak[ing] arbitrary comments" here. I can only speak for myself, but I personally am: a 8-year investor in distressed homes; a Realtor; a current owner of a very broken-down Victorian (older than 1406 Fremont); and a member of the NOMI Project where we work to (among other things) sell and reintegrate foreclosed properties in North Minneapolis. I think that puts me quite solidly in the center of the field, rather than on any sideline. I completely disagree with the sweepingly generalized indication that every house on the demolition list is beyond salvage. While some of these homes certainly need to come down, until I've been in every single one (Has Mr. Wonka?) I will refrain from painting the case with a broad brush. One property I DO know is 1406 Fremont. I've been in it many times. My verdict, (which is mine alone, of course,) is that it should stand. And as for the comment that these houses were previously available to investors (and the implication that they were not wanted,) I would be happy to explain the realities of this past year's roller-coaster pricing on foreclosures to anyone who would like to hear about it. The fact is that this property in particular was horrendously overpriced for a good year. It is only in the past few months that it came down to a level which makes restoration feasible. But alas, it may well be too late now. PS: Anyone who wishes to get a virtual peek at 1406 and missed the news segment, look here: (click on the beautiful newel post to start the video. Yes that's the newel-post which Tom Deegan says has been "dismantled.") http://kstp.com/article/stories/S611830.shtml?cat=1 Connie Nompelis Central Neighborhood
Families who have raised generations of children in these houses and have
remained in their homes to date are not gasping for air or struggling with
first grade math due to mold and asbestos. They have a place to live and don't
intend nor can afford to move anywhere else. And they certainly can't afford to
have their entire house gutted by a hazmat crew. There's an alarmist quality to
the perpetuatedview that anyone who's lived in or living in a house built
before 1945 has the IQ of a tree stumpdue to lead and asbestos exposure. If
everyone who was ever exposed to lead-based paint or asbestos in the numerous
dwellings, churches, schools and other public buildings built prior to the
abatement codes of today suffered from the seemingly endlesssymptomsothey might
potentially be cursed with, every house on the north side and elsewhere would
be vacant.
Jill Laxen
Cleveland
Jill Harmon: "There's an alarmist quality to the perpetuated view that anyone
who's lived in or living in a house built before 1945 has the IQ of a tree
stump due to lead and asbestos exposure."
I'll take some credit for perpetuating an alarmist view. It's true that any
house built before 1978 has lead paint issues. Some of the lead paint has been
encapsulated, some houses/apartments have been HEPA vacuumed. There have been
people doing lead abatement since the 1990s.
The issue is particularly dicey with children under the age of six, with those
under 2 years old being at greatest risk. They are at risk because of two
things: the littlest kids spend a lot of time putting their fingers in their
mouths and crawling around on the floor. Also, lead paint chips are sweet, so
kids sometimes put them in their mouths. Still, it's the fine dust of lead
paint that is the most often damaging. The fine dust often comes from opening
and closing lead painted windows, for example.
I have known children under 2 years of age to have blood lead levels in the
upper eighties, while the standard for "safe" blood lead levels is under ten.
The results of high blood lead levels are very apparent: listlessness, lack of
appropriate motor skill development, hearing loss. A child loses one IQ point
for every ten blood lead level points. That may not be such a noticeable thing
if the kid was born a genius, but if the kid was born with an IQ of under 100
and also has a blood lead level of, say 87, that is a considerable loss.
It can often mean that the child will never be able to live independently as an
adult and there are group homes for adults who have had childhood lead
poisoning. Adults with the consequences of childhood lead poisoning do not
necessarily die at an early age. That means that, if the family was not wealthy
to begin with (and lead poisoning hits the poor and people of color hardest and
most frequently), the state picks up the cost of caring for them for many, many
years. They have severe health issues as a consequence of childhood lead
poisoning.
The heartbreak of children with lead poisoning is just awful to see. The
parents freak out, of course, and their beautiful child (often children) has,
in effect, lost the potential for the life he or she was born with. It's sad
that families have no choice when they have a house, not much money, and the
potential for lead poisoned children.
While it is true that every house built before 1978 has lead issues, it is the
houses and apartments which had more turnover which are potentially the most
hazardous. Houses in the inner city, of course, are most likely to have lead
issues, they were built the earliest and have had the greatest number of
different occupants. They also have, too often, a history of ownership without
maintenance as they get older.
As a potent aside, there was a study done in Attica Prison in the late
80s-early 90s, which showed that fully 50% of the prisoners had suffered
childhood lead poisoning. When you ponder that a felon has done something so
dumb its unbelievable to merit prison, my first question is about childhood
lead poisoning.
Germany banned lead paint in the 1870s, the rest of Europe and North Africa
banned lead paint in 1925. In the United States the owners of the lead mines
persuaded Congress not to ban lead paint. It took until 1978 for pediatricians
and others to get the US Congress to ban lead paint. So, you can thank those
SOBs in Congress for the situation we have now.
You can thank state Rep. Karen Clark for making an issue of lead paint to the
point where Minnesota has laws and trigger points for childhood lead poison.
Just two years ago, Rep. Ellison led the charge to get the standard for blood
lead levels lowered from 11 ug/dl to a lower, safer trigger point (which point
I can't call to mind at the moment).
By law, the city is responsible for putting houses with lead paint on the 249
list, once they have been empty long enough to require lead testing.
Personally, I support the city and the state in this endeavor.