Ten Historic Springfield Demolitions

[ChriswUfGator]

The non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work.  And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources.  I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.

However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control.  Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there.  The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night.  Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.  So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish.  The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.

JayBird, this makes me so sad.  Especially this line:

Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.

Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever.  And why?  Because it needed structural work?  Don't they all.

Because vagrants weren't good neighbors? 

NIMBYISM knows no bounds.

That being said,    I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison.  I think our city is better for it, without any doubt.    But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.

I went through it several times back at that time, it needed a roof, and flooring and joists (because of the roof problems), but the building itself was solid brick and poured concrete, sitting on a concrete foundation. The only rebar I noticed was used in balustrades and decorative elements, some of which had cracked from rust, but a minor fix since they were still there to make a form off of. But structurally there was nothing wrong with it, the structure itself was solid brick and poured concrete, where's it gonna go?

You should have seen the bulldozers laboring to tear that thing down. The first one couldn't make a dent, so they brought a second one that accomplished nothing twice as fast. Then they brought in a giant excavator thing that broke, and finally resorted to a wrecking ball before it would come down. And even then it still took a week. All on an allegedly structurally-deficient building.

[John P]

The non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work.  And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources.  I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.

However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control.  Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there.  The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night.  Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.  So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish.  The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.

JayBird, this makes me so sad.  Especially this line:

Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.

Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever.  And why?  Because it needed structural work?  Don't they all.

Because vagrants weren't good neighbors? 

NIMBYISM knows no bounds.

That being said,    I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison.  I think our city is better for it, without any doubt.    But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.

Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.

[sheclown]

John P.  Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt. 

There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF.  If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district.  We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true.  But it is hip because it is authentic.  Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.

[sheclown]

No, completely understand SheClown.  I am ashamed that we couldn't have found another way to resolve the issues and save the buildings as looking at this post on Facebook, which is what brought me to this thread, those buildings held a lot of memories.  Sometimes, in the pursuit of a righteous action much wrong can be done.  I am reminded of the Amish interpretation of a famous adage, "for you must break a few eggs to make an omelet yet you forget that the chicken will not produce forever". 

Oh, how I LOVE this.  Perfect.  Thanks.

I suppose we need to review our old adages every now and again.

[strider]

[

Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.

And so, please tell me why you moved into a nationally recognized Historic District if you don't like old houses?  Because at one time or another, just about ALL of the old houses in Springfield could have been (met the criteria) or were in fact, condemned.  And all of them could have been taken for the social reasons most of the 535 houses lost since Springfield was designated a nationally recognized Historic District were taken.  33% of it's HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK lost since it has been a protected historic district.   Most taken for social reasons rather than anything based in reality.

Many of the grandest homes were vacant and often condemned for a decade or more.  Many more were saved because they were operational rooming houses.  Yes, gasp, rooming houses saved many of the best houses in Springfield.  Often, it wasn't until the city stepped in with the support of groups like SPAR and started closing down those rooming houses that the houses were abandoned and began to deteriorate enough to be "blight". Even so, these grand old ladies withstood the ravages of time and many were restored and are homes to some of the very people who want to tear the rest down.

You mentioned SRG.  Well, SRG was a huge part of the problem in that the main owner and his wife believed as you seem to, the way you save a Historic District is to get rid of the ugly old houses.   When you stop and think about what a Historic District is and why it is so designated, that concept is a bit nuts, isn't it?

The truth is us raving preservationists are not asking that every single house be saved, that is unrealistic.  However,  demolitions for the wrong reasons must be stopped.  The ugly house that is still standing strong must be saved.  The law allows for Code to mothball these houses and that should be done rather than demolition.  The law allows for relatively minor repairs to be performed by Code and that should be done rather than the harassment of the owner to the point that the house sits and becomes blight.  Basically, if we had a MCC Chief that cared about the people of this city, if she chose to help rather than hinder the people she is supposed to be serving, then we wouldn't need to have this conversation.  And both sides of the equation, us preservationists and even you, John P, would be much happier.

But we don't; so, we preservationists are speaking up and intend to keep kicking butt until we get what this district deserves and what is actually best for all of us, even you , John P.

[Demosthenes]

The non-profit I work for, Prisoners of Christ, operates apartments in the remaining building and had tried to save those other structures, but they were in need of major work.  And even with the backing of Ed Austin and WW Gay we just didn't have the necessary resources.  I remember the preservationists had tried to save them, something about the design was unique to that period of building which I cannot recall now.

However, after sitting empty it attracted a criminal element that had gotten out of control.  Incan remember stopping by our apartments on a Saturday morning and seeing numerous lost souls just hanging out there.  The police were called a lot and then it came to be that once or twice a month fire rescue would be called to remove someone who had passed over the night.  Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.  So it was actually our organization, with the help of prominent board members, who pushed the city to demolish.  The day before it was taken down, we walked through with a city building inspector and the floors were falling into the basement (a basement in Florida!) and there were crack pipes and tin foil and needles everywhere.

JayBird, this makes me so sad.  Especially this line:

Being that we house men coming out of prison, the neighbor was not the best to have.

Now that building is lost to the neighborhood, forever.  And why?  Because it needed structural work?  Don't they all.

Because vagrants weren't good neighbors? 

NIMBYISM knows no bounds.

That being said,    I am impressed by the work you do for those just getting out of prison.  I think our city is better for it, without any doubt.    But just because I admire your work, it doesn't mean that I'm not upset by the loss of a historic building and your role in it.

Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.

John, I suspect we know a lot of the same people. Even if we dont, I know exactly the "type" of person you speak of. Generally its people who moved to the neighborhood under what some now consider false promises, and they get frustrated by the lack of support by the city, and the general sense of having the entire city look down their noses at them, and the occasionally frustrating back slides with crime.

These people believe that "normal people" wont consider the neighborhood to be truly changed until the old crack houses are fixed up or torn down, and they dont care which happens first, just that it happen soon. They believe that the economic cost of fixing up these old houses is greater than the houses worth. Truth be told, from a straight financial viewpoint, they are probably correct. (they discount how much a preservationist is willing to spend on a project they believe in)

However, a few intangibles need to be considered. First. No matter what happens in Springfield, most of the rest of the city will forever and always think of it as a shitty neighborhood. No matter how incorrect and unfair this is, it will take a generation or more to transform Jacksonvilles view of Springfield. My thought. Stop worrying about the backwards rednecks who are afraid of black people walking down the street, and white collar suburbanites who think it it aint gated, it aint a community.

Second thing, all of the things that have occurred, from the starting of the various preservation groups, to the new constructions, to the brilliantly diverse make up of the community are in place because it is a historic neighborhood. No historic housing stock, no designation, no new construction, no bank incentives, no grants, likely no upwardly mobile population.

From what I have seen, the missing ingredient in the community is a thriving commercial district. You want to help the community, open a business. Pool your money. Buy Main Street, and bring it back to life. If you are able to do that, people will lament that there are too few crappy houses left to give them a shot at living in an awesome and vibrant community. The view of the neighborhood will shift if people start eating and shopping on Main.

My belief is, stop going for the easy fix of tearing down ugly, and focus efforts on rebuilding from Main Street out. Preserve the housing stock until they can be saved. There are plenty of lots to build out on. Dont create more.

[thelakelander]

That's a good belief.  Main and 8th Streets would both benefit from some extra focus, help, and density.

[m74reeves]

Here is Preservation SOS's email to Councilman Lumb in relation to Mr. Ashanta-Barker's email. It's long, people, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

June 28, 2013

Mr. Lumb,
Thanks for giving us a chance to explore the issues regarding demolitions in historic Springfield.  I don’t think that anyone would deny that some private property owners in Springfield have been derelict in their maintenance and improvement of their properties. You will get no argument from anyone about that. What we’re concerned about is HOW BEST to deal with that fact and intervene in ways that are sensitive to the needs of our historic neighborhood.

No one has asked MCCD to rehabilitate or renovate structures. No one. What MCCD has been asked to do by groups such as ours and by the JHC is to stabilize structures in cases where that can be accomplished which, according to our reading of City codes, is within their power and responsibility to do so.

The Ordinances read:

Sec. 307.113. Unsafe Structure Abatement.
   In the event a structure that has been designated as a landmark or contributing to an historic district    under the provisions of this Chapter is declared to be an unsafe structure or condemned…. In    determining the appropriate manner to remedy emergency conditions affecting a landmark, landmark    site, or a property in a historic district, the remedy shall be limited to the least intrusive means to    minimize the impact to the historic fabric. Consideration shall be given to bracing or other stabilization    alternatives if such would be sufficient to abate the emergency conditions.

Sec. 518.151. Emergencies.
(a)   Notwithstanding any other requirements of this Chapter, when, in the opinion of the Chief, an emergency exists which requires immediate action to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants of a property, the Chief shall take that action which he deems appropriate to abate the conditions which threaten the health, safety or general welfare of the public or occupants. The action may require the purchase of materials and labor adequate to render the property temporarily safe. When temporary measures are inadequate, the property may be demolished provided notice procedures prescribed in this Section have been instituted. In these cases, the Chief may order repairs to be made and the occupants to vacate the property immediately, as the case may be.

Sec. 518.304. Abatement by city.
In the event the unsafe structure is not demolished or the repair or other work is not performed within the time and as required by the Chief or the Building Codes Adjustment Board, the Chief shall cause the demolition or repair or other work, including, but not limited to, boarding to be performed by independent contractors, city employees, or such other qualified means as available...

In fact, bracing was asked specifically of MCCD for 129 E. 2nd Street at the HPC meeting, and the VERY NEXT DAY this structure was taken down as an emergency demolition. We think it can be disputed that this property was structurally unsafe; contractors and indeed city employees stated that the main house was stable, but the porch needed additional securing. This house was not abandoned. The owner has a mortgage on the property and to our knowledge, has kept that current as well as her property taxes. However, with the recent demolition (a violation of her mortgage), coupled with the liens and other associated fines, this property owner in all likelihood will walk away from this property, further preventing the property from getting put back into a productive use due to perhaps future foreclosure proceedings or the sheer mountain of fines. If the property does end up in foreclosure, it should be noted that the City is highly unlikely to recover any of the monies levied against the property.

Regarding 253 E. 2nd Street, I think we once again can call into question whether this structure warranted an emergency demolition.  Contracted work had been undertaken to stabilize the house. In fact, in videos of the demolition, you can see that interior trusses and joists are all new materials.  According to local Realtors and the owner, there was an interested buyer in this property. Additionally, it also appears that the Neighborhood Initiatives division had interest in the property for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).

Those are some of the specifics about these two recent demolitions. However, these demolitions highlight how City policies impede revitalization of our historic district and may be violating City code as well as personal property rights:
•   At a minimum, there is terrible interdepartmental communication at the City. At the worst, MCCD was aware of the interest and directives of other City agencies (one within Mr. Ashanta-Barker’s purview), and absolutely was determined to take the structures down anyway.
•   MCCD has made it clear that they don’t see their role as one of bracing or stabilizing structures, even though City code seems to suggest otherwise. The Mayor and/or City Council needs to clarify that it is their duty to do this as a first line of defense in these historic districts or put another agency in charge.
•   In Nationally declared historic districts, there should be review by the HPC PRIOR TO taking down a structure, not AFTER, even with emergency demolitions.
•   Citations given by code are often nebulous and open to interpretation. It’s hard for an owner to address the deficiencies when code enforcement states that the “entire structure” needs repair without any specifics. 
•   In order to make repairs, it is especially onerous to regain access to your own property to do repairs. And when you are located in a historic district, you have to work with multiple City agencies to initiate the repairs, agencies that do not communicate with each other. You have to seek permission from MCCD to access your property, you have to apply to HPC for a COA, and you have to work with Building Inspections to pull any necessary permits. Each of these agencies has different timelines and requirements for review of work, which usually does not fall within the typical 15 to 30 days a property owner is given to make the property compliant.
•   Fees and fines don’t seem to be incentivizing owners to make repairs. In many cases, especially with low income owners, it only serves for owners to give up. If you are cited, you have to pay $100 fee to appeal the complaint, $250 per day fines, coupled with any hard costs the City encumbers for abating the violation. Even if a permit is successfully pulled (another fee) and repairs are in progress, property owners can still accumulate fines. This all adds up quickly and makes it appear that the City is more interested in generating money than helping property owners get properties renovated.
•   How MCCD conducts itself with occupied properties should be reviewed. In at least one recent case, code’s condemnation of a property has made an owner homeless. Not a good policy move on the part of the City.
•   Because a moratorium on demolitions had already been established in this district, it appears that MCCD is now using “emergency demolitions” as a means of circumventing the existing moratorium. We would like to be assured that this is not the case.
•   The procurement of the actual demolition contractors should also be reviewed to ensure that multiple bids are pursued, even in emergency situations. Relying on what appears to be one demolition contractor repeatedly to perform these emergency demolitions opens pricing up to abuse.
•   I think that we should be careful about relying on reports given to the City by its “Independent Structural Engineer,” as this is ONE engineering firm secured specifically by MCCD and has been used continuously for years. They seem to be called in once MCCD officers have already deemed the property “condemned.”  It would be prudent to explore how this firm is procured as they seem to have a lock on assisting MCCD.  Annual requests for proposals for these services should be utilized and the engineer should have some background in working with historic properties.
•   We would like to encourage the City to use other methods at hand to get these properties in the hands of entities that will mothball or renovate them. The NSP program would have been a prime opportunity to do such. It would seem logical that many of these properties have back taxes. The City could assume the tax deed to these properties and donate to not for profits or other agencies or individuals that can mothball or renovate. In some cases, I would assume that the City has parcels that have already escheated to them since no one has purchased the tax deed. There is room to be creative about spurring redevelopment that could save the City money in the long run by the cost savings of bracing the nuisance over demolition, avoiding the City having to mow lots they currently own or that are vacant and abandoned, or generate additional tax revenues when a restored property is complete.

We would love to have an opportunity to review some of the information referenced by Mr. Ashanta-Barker. We have been asking for copies of engineering reports on cited properties, lists of properties in Springfield that have boarded up by MCCD, funding sources for these demolitions, listing of City owned properties in Springfield and lists of properties slated for demolition (as you have requested as well), for starters. We are still waiting on these items.

What we would love even more is to focus and be involved in finding real collaborative solutions to this situation.  The recent actions by MCCD only further exacerbate problems in our neighborhood. We would like nuisance abatement in our historic districts to be accomplished in the least invasive way as already outlined by current ordinance. Once that occurs, then Mr. Ashanta-Barker can argue that MCCD “plays an integral role in preservation of local historic structures.” Destruction of these structures by the City is destruction of our historic neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Preservation SOS

[chris farley]

Thank you JaxUnicorn
Lakelander your new project interests me.  The first photo is of the old grocery store on Walnut at First.  Sadly the roof pancaked into that building, I went down to look at it.  That is the problem with brick buildings with flat roofs containing wood, I was told that in some cases subterranean termites are able to get into the roof.  There were no other floors left in the building. I fear it may happen to the apartments at First and Market.  (The Pearl Building at 1st and Main, the one on the NE Corner of 8th and Main and one that used to stand at the corner of 3rd and Walnut were all drug stores owned by the same man in the early 1900s, I believe the one on Walnut went down ca 1998 due to roof problems.)   I know there is concern about the roof on the Market street apartment building.
Number 3 The Jewish Center.  This was one of the first buildings I took a look at since the gorgeous house that was the home of Mary Dillon was taken down along with 3 other neighbors to build this and adjoining structures.  There are some very nice newspaper articles about the first services therein and also the fact that during the war the congregation worked with other faiths to try and save Jews in Europe.  I felt this building was taken down too quickly after the fire.  Those brick walls were so think. Had there been a decent owner willing to scaffold the place it could have survived, churches in earthquakes have survived worse.There were 5 magnificent houses on that block and now only the Drew remains.  I thought recently that this building had a new owner, but it does not appear to be so. The lovely old post card used in the latest tour shows this block.
The fifth building, the old laundry the wind blew the main wall, on Walnut down during a huge thunderstorm.  I was on my porch and watched the wall come towards me like a giant wave.  As it hit the ground, it sounded like a bomb falling, and its coping stones hit my fence - that is about 60 feet.  Had it been on a narrower street - like Liberty those stones would have been through my windows.    When I called 911 the police and rescue turned up - we were on TV.  They were concerned that someone may have been under the wall.  There was a man who had just walked by prior to the fall, he came back and could not believe it.   That is why I understand the fear of anyone living near a derelict building. 
There are a couple of large houses which I believe were original farms here that were misdated in the survey and lost, one that stood where the bakery is on East 11th.
I am almost afraid to say it, but I am scared for the Drew.  I did not know what NSP funds were or were for, until I accused of something and they were mentioned.  I am only interested in the history and the people - read the Thomas Hardy poem "The Ghost of the Past".  I do not care for the politics and cannot be bothered to find out about ordinances and funds, Dancy Terrace was saved because we concentrated on its history and importance.
When I first came here in 2000 you were lucky if there was one house on a block restored.  The houses around the Woman's Club looked terrible, but look at them now.  There was a difference then though, the houses were not stripped out.  Certainly stuff had been taken out of them, but many many of their original features remained.  Paneling was found under wallboard, pocket doors were unearthed from the walls, lighting fixtures survived.  Since about 2003 houses get bought, the entire guts taken out and then the building left to stand (or fall).
Anyway I believe you will put out an interesting book

[John P]

John P.  Your views are certainly shared by some living in Springfield, no doubt. 

There is also a strong vibe of preservation that asks the question WTF.  If you aren't a preservationist at heart, don't move to a historic district.  We all know that Mack hyped up Springfield as "the hippiest hood in town" and that is certainly true.  But it is hip because it is authentic.  Remove the old houses, build faux new ones, and you've lost your groove.

You are lost. You can enjoy history and old homes and the environement it creates and still accept that some need to go. Like I said we have had inpet city leadership. If it was different and the historic areas were supported like they deserve this would not be a problem. But it is not, they are not, and it is. There are probably not that many more homes that need to go and there are probably many that did not need to go. That is reality!

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

There are probably not that many more homes that need to go

there are none[/i][/u] that need to go.  period.

[John P]

[

Give me a break! I speak for the silent majority of people who dont know about or want to post on metrojacksonville or other forums saying that to save Springfield there needed to be a lot of demolitions! You needed to get alot of the socual services agenecies out of the neighborhood! You needed all those new nice srg houses! The neighborhood would be a piece of crap today if none of that happened. It would be a "what if" story and not the continuing success story it has become! Its like crying over spilled milk while making a feast. It was a necessary part of this neighborhoods reviatlization because the city leadership has been so inept. It may not be as neccesary now but it was before springfield became a nice place to live again.

And so, please tell me why you moved into a nationally recognized Historic District if you don't like old houses?  Because at one time or another, just about ALL of the old houses in Springfield could have been (met the criteria) or were in fact, condemned.  And all of them could have been taken for the social reasons most of the 535 houses lost since Springfield was designated a nationally recognized Historic District were taken.  33% of it's HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK lost since it has been a protected historic district.   Most taken for social reasons rather than anything based in reality.

Many of the grandest homes were vacant and often condemned for a decade or more.  Many more were saved because they were operational rooming houses.  Yes, gasp, rooming houses saved many of the best houses in Springfield.  Often, it wasn't until the city stepped in with the support of groups like SPAR and started closing down those rooming houses that the houses were abandoned and began to deteriorate enough to be "blight". Even so, these grand old ladies withstood the ravages of time and many were restored and are homes to some of the very people who want to tear the rest down.

You mentioned SRG.  Well, SRG was a huge part of the problem in that the main owner and his wife believed as you seem to, the way you save a Historic District is to get rid of the ugly old houses.   When you stop and think about what a Historic District is and why it is so designated, that concept is a bit nuts, isn't it?

The truth is us raving preservationists are not asking that every single house be saved, that is unrealistic.  However,  demolitions for the wrong reasons must be stopped.  The ugly house that is still standing strong must be saved.  The law allows for Code to mothball these houses and that should be done rather than demolition.  The law allows for relatively minor repairs to be performed by Code and that should be done rather than the harassment of the owner to the point that the house sits and becomes blight.  Basically, if we had a MCC Chief that cared about the people of this city, if she chose to help rather than hinder the people she is supposed to be serving, then we wouldn't need to have this conversation.  And both sides of the equation, us preservationists and even you, John P, would be much happier.

But we don't; so, we preservationists are speaking up and intend to keep kicking butt until we get what this district deserves and what is actually best for all of us, even you , John P.

I do like old homes and own more than one. I also can see that for Springfield nothing positive was ever going to happen there until it was mosty purged of the social services, rooming houses and other element that create a toxic stew of crap. If that meant some homes were taken away, well that is the price paid for bad city pleadership and policy over 40 years. Evidently it worked ok looking at who moves to Springfield now.

Also I have to say you do not read very well because I said very clearly that it is not a choice between "save every single house" and "knock down a house because it is ugly". There has to be a balance and scale of community needs. Those needs chnage over time and the area is at a point now I think where it can carry the burden of vacant homes in horrible shape because of all the success. When there was not as much success people would not move there with horrible vacant homes, prostitiutes, drugs, little momentum. Now that the negative activity has been isolated to a few blocks and its hard to find a prostitute anywhere the momentum sustained and people are more willing to live among the few vacant houses in horrible shape. I really do not think there are many of these examples left though because most have been taken down. Most vacant houses now are boarded and they are not a problem or host to problems. The old Moates house on East Third Street is a example of something that will never be restored in any of our lifetimes and needs to come down. But those are few and far between now. I do not own a srg house and never have but that is the single best thing that ever happened to Springfield. If srg never came the neighborhood would still be a slum or Eastside like.

I also want to say something else sort of related.  The residential areas of the neighborhood are much more revitalized than the commercial arteries. The residential roads have done pretty well in the last 10 years. The main problem today in Springfield is the commerical arteries because of bad landowners and landlords. Some are underwater some do not see you have to spend money to make money and some are unrealistic on rents. Hell some are owned by the city and we all know they dont have a clue! The problem is not too few old homes to renovate or lack of demand for housing.

[sheclown]

yes, John, mortgage fraud did wonders for the neighborhood.

[fieldafm]

yes, John, mortgage fraud did wonders for the neighborhood.

LOL, thanks for making my day!

Touche'

[m74reeves]

I do not own a srg house and never have but that is the single best thing that ever happened to Springfield. If srg never came the neighborhood would still be a slum or Eastside like.

I can't speak to mortgage fraud, but when I was looking to buy a house last year, there was an incredible glut of SRG homes on the market in Springfield...either foreclosures or short sales. When you saw the original sales price compared to the listing, it was really shocking. I know SRG sold these at the height of the market, but all the ensuing foreclosures are also a blow to the neighborhood (and this is another issue...not just in Springfield...are these REO properties being maintained by the banks).