Historical November 1976 report and opinion about the proposed historic district. The proposed boundaries, permit discussion and personal response describe the period; this is not current legal guidance.
On October 11, 1976, the Skinker-De Baliviere Community Council voted to extend the boundaries of the proposed Skinker-DeBaliviere-Parkview Historic District to include the “industrial triangle” area north of the boundaries previously approved, contingent upon the agreement of the larger industries thus included (Angelica Uniform, Dorris, Crescent Plumbing Supply, Weissman, Washing Well, etc.). These companies will be contact by Cal Stuart, SDCC’s executive director, along with members of the committee, to get their reactions to the historic district idea and their suggestions on possible tightening or change of emphasis within the very loose set of industrial use and appearance standards the committee and the Council have recommended.
The rationale behind including the “triangle” (about 1/2 of the area is actually zoned industrial) rests on two main points:
1. Control and standards applied to that area can mean that the last remaining entrance to our neighborhood is reasonably attractive and free of some things we would not wish to have so close to our residential area. In effect, we will be including all the uncontrolled area which, if left to itself, could pessimistically greatly detract from an historic district close by. University City, Forest Park, and Pantheon’s redevelopment area surround us with the proposed new boundaries.
2. The businesses and industries from Delmar north cannot be anything but helped if the area on all sides of each of them is gradually made more and attractive. Workers, salesmen, customers and neighbors would all be happier with a more pleasant appearance throughout the area, and all businesses would benefit from this.
Also, the idea of control over some of the undeveloped land which could possibly be someday developed by dirty or noisy or troublesome industries would perhaps encourage a feeling of community among the members of the historic district, to the great benefit of everyone. The railroad tracks and Forest Park are natural boundaries, and the Pantheon redevelopment area to the east promises improvement: To the West, University City has been engaged in code enforcement and development of some sense of community along their eastern boundaries, so tacking down the City side of the line is the last job which must be done if the entire area around our residential end of the City is to be looked at optimistically.
A Pat On A Large Neighborhood Back
A letter, dated October 7, 1976, from James H. Praprotnik, Head of Development and Design Evaluation at the St. Louis Community Development Agency, informs us that the staff of the Planning and Programming Division has completed its preliminary review of the proposed Residential / Commercial-Use / Construction Standards for the proposed SkinkerDeBaliviere-Parkview Historic District and “finds them of sufficient detail to enforce under Procedural Ordinance 56100 requirements.” Unofficially, Jim said we’ve all done a very good job!
Comments on Current Issues
Al Nerviani’s article, in the September issue of The Paper, all about building ,permits, stresses the basic philosophy of safety for City residents. That’s why you must have a building permit to do anything major to your building and why your plans and actual construction must be reviewed and inspected. An actual case of architect-drawn plans for a porch rehabilitation which were rejected by a building inspector has come to our attention. The inspector suggested an alternative construction for the point he’d rejected, based on his long-time experience with older buildings and materials, and will provide several on-site inspections throughout actual construction. Thus the low fee paid for the building permit (under $20) is actually going to pay for the benefit of a professional’s thorough review of the preliminary plans (so costly adjustments won’t have to be made later), his experienced suggestions of alternatives, and his time and knowledge on-the-site during construction. The fee is not a way for a city to make money, but a way for a city to be sure that its citizens are both safe and happy with their rehabilitated home.
Code enforcement is based upon the same philosophy of citizen safety and satisfaction with himself and his neighborhood. The building inspectors are not “out to get you”—not currently nor in the proposed historic district situation. Building inspectors in sympathy with their area tend to lean toward enforcing that which is enforceable and practical in that area, consistent only with the overall safety of the community.
My own personal response to Mike Stahl’s letter in the October issue of The Paper (I cannot speak for any other member of the Committee) is that the area encompassed by our proposed historic distric is significant to the City for its selection of housing. Our argument for selection as a historic district is that our neighborhood runs the gamut from small to large in housing size and enables income levels from low to very high to exist within the same neighborhood—and has done so since its inception during the first quarter of the 20th century. It was developed to do just that! Now it is an actual neighborhood integrated economically as well as racially and by age of residents. If Mike’s neighbor cannot maintain his present home, in safety to himself or his neighbors, perhaps he should sell it and look elsewhere. But not as Mike suggests, in North St. Louis, or Wellston, or University City north of Olive “where he won’t be hassled by city inspectors”— hopefully, anyone who lets his property run down will be hasseled anywhere he does it. But if the neighbor really has felt the pressure of our inflation/recession situation, as we all have, and that is the only reason he’s having trouble, why not look elsewhere for housing that’s economically possible—elsewhere in our very own neighborhood! Or has “yesterday’s snobbishness” lingered to today? Let’s face it — the “omelette” Mike suggests we may be preparing by way of our hopedfor historic district designation—that omelette is what we are today. All kinds of eggs were broken to make it quite some time ago! But you don’t just throw out the eggs if you find out that they were broken into what’s turned out to be a good pan. You rearrange the eggs as part of the whole thing until they are cooked together just right. And I believe that right now our neighborhood is really cooking!
Originally published in The Paper, November 1976.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Archival transcription note: Printed made more and attractive, contact and hasseled retained; historical income/race interpretation attributed to author.
Original source: SD_Times1976_11.pdf, printed page(s) 4; PDF page(s) 4.
