Ionia Street: losing its battle?

[sheclown]

Ionia Street has long been loved by Springfielders for its quirky little bungalows, appliance-decorated front porches, exquisite & tastefully executed restorations, lovely old trees and its Wild Wild West reputation.  Oddly enough, those who live here will tell you that it is one of the quiet spots in Springfield.  Its wide road forks dead-ended into tiny little streets where children play in dirt yards.  

It is quintessentially Springfield.

And, it is in danger.



If one compares (which I did) existing buildings to the property appraiser's map, you'll find roughly 55 dwellings, new, old, & commercial now placed on 80 lots.  Twenty-five lots are empty.

Ionia has lost 30% of her dwellings. To fire, to Formal Track, to neglect.

And four more homes are in imminent danger:  1140, 1323, 1551-55, 1626.  

We really need to ask ourselves, can we afford to lose four more houses on this street?  Especially houses that pose no safety threat to the public.

[iloveionia]

Thank you sheclown.
I am quite fond of Ionia.
The block between 1st/2nd, 3rd/4th, and 6th/7th possess the most vacant lots and neglected homes.

[Springfielder]

I've always liked Ionia as well, and find it so sad to see the loss it's suffered over the years...

[sheclown]

Ionia has lost 30% of her dwellings. To fire, to Formal Track, to neglect.

And four more homes are in imminent danger:  1140, 1323, 1551-55, 1626. 

We really need to ask ourselves, can we afford to lose four more houses on this street?  Especially houses that pose no safety threat to the public.

Add 1320 Ionia to that list if it is approved on Wednesday afternoon.

[iloveionia]

Clark Street has lost 46% of it's density.  13 vacant lots scar the street, only 15/28 homes remain.  Clark Street IS in Historic Springfield.  It is directly behind Ionia and goes from 2nd to 6th Streets.

[sheclown]

Carmen Street:  zero bungalows left.  0/9.  

Lost 100% of its density.

I remember little bungalows, much like Ionia.

[sheclown]

There are no more houses left on Carmen Street.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I feel the need to ask a question or two:

The homes that are being scheduled for demolition are all vacant, they are in need of major repairs and the owners' are not forthcoming after receiving notice after notice.  Would this assumption be correct?

Secondly, the cost to refurbish/renovate a home is typically close to twice the cost of starting from scratch, so what investor would be willing to accept twice as much liability for a 'historic' home in this market?

After you answer those for me, I have one more:

I do appreciate the 'charm' of older homes, I purchased a bungalow in Murray Hill for that reason.  The charm in most of the houses on the block, so to say, has long since left and isn't going to come back.  I understand that you don't want to see empty lots, but I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think that these abandoned homes don't pose any danger.  Where did you go to do your mischief as a teen?  We did it in the houses that we knew no one lived, and I ran across some very unsavory people that had taken up residence in said houses.  It's hard for a crackhead to have a filthified lair in an open lot.  I digress. 


To keep the charm of the neighborhood, aside from the vacant lots, wouldn't it be prudent for SAR to approve only 'hisitoric' homes to be built on these vacant lots? (they might already, but I don't know)  This would allow developers/home-builders to create new homes that would be built in the style and tradition of the older, historic homes at a much reduced cost wouldn't it?

[vicupstate]

It does not cost twice as much to renovate versus build new.  Whatever is reused is something that the new construction party did not have to buy in the first place.

New construction is almost always much more expensive than something renovated in Springfield.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'll let you in to my myopic world - I have 2 English Oak Entry Doors w/ Bronze mortised handlesets, hinges & knocker.  These doors have seen better days.  My cost to refurbish said doors (not replace, but to repair & polish & finish) was $4,200 - an estimate, mind you.  "Why so much?", I ask.  "Because to replicate what was there I have to use specialty vendors that deal with antiquated products and they charge a premium.", was hi answer. 

I follow with, "How much for new doors?" He said, "Let me go back to the shop, get some pricing and I'll call you tomorrow." 

A pair of English Brown Oak Doors with period Hardware - $3,250 firm. 

I have gotten the same response with other items that I have wanted to reuse (mostly items that I get from salvage trips into areas much like springfield.)  That being said, it costs more to refurbish than to build new due the cost of a craftman's time, not so much the materials. 

[uptowngirl]

You have to think about quality too- where in the world are you going to get (and afford) solid piece old hardwood tiger oak joists? The type of joists that will be just as strong and not need replacement due to termites or dry rot after 100 + years and 20yrs of neglect and abandonment? I too have been quoted crazy prices on refinishing doors and windows, so I learned how to do it myself, and have become quite proficient. It is the American way though, cheaper is better and qaulity is unimportant to many, many people and when it comes to houses there is plethora of new housing developments in St. Johns county that will offer you a good deal on house that will last you 30yrs with upkeep.

[avs]

You are making the point of saving the homes yourself - the craftsmanship cannot be replicated.  They cannot be replaced with new homes.  No one builds like that anymore.

Major historic districts all over the US have houses in the same bad condition.  They board them up and then at some point someone comes and buys them and renovates them.  Just because they have been let go does not mean they aren't worth renovating.  My own house was not habitable when we purchased and renovated it.

Boarded up houses being preserved for a future owner is MUCH better than a vacant blighted lot

[Debbie Thompson]

Best not to buy in an historic district if you don't want to pay for keeping the historic charm. There are many who value the craftsmanship.  Not necessarily investors, mind you, but homeowners....families....people who love the history of the area.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I am in no way suggesting that any sort/style/template of the undistinguishable track-housing be built.  I think that it's up to the Preservation society to stritly adhere to their core principle, which is retain the value of the area.  But I think that new homes can be built, that fall in line with old-world charm and new world products.

The craftsmanship can be replicated.  The materials can be made more durable and from recycled product.  I'm not saying it's an inexpensive way to rebuild the neighborhood, just a less expensive way to do it. 

I don't like emptly lots either, but I believe that they sell better than a lot with a discarded home on it.  You keep the 'historic' value by allowing people to build 'historic' homes.  Oxymoron I know, but truth.

[avs]

all you have to do is compare the number of vacant lots sold in the past 12 months to the number of homes in need of rehab that sold in the same time period.

here are the numbers out of MLS, 18 homes sold in need of rehab in the last 12 months and 3 lots.

homes needing rehab way outsell vacant lots.  by far.