Submitted by ChillyGraham t3_xvi4vp in springfieldMO
The developers followed through today. The house is gone.
Comments
Trixxxxxi t1_ir1acy9 wrote
Now they get a carwash instead.
22TopShelf22 t1_ir3f8hy wrote
They made their bed. If the kind lady was allowed to open her operation to help people. This would have never happened. Hard to feel bad for the university heights snobs.
smith_winston_1984 t1_ir1y3m2 wrote
That's our city government for you. And most of them are up for re-election soon. Vote the same get the same. They call him mayor McClueless for a reason.
robzilla71173 t1_ir288ib wrote
I believe Bob Stephens would have been mayor back in 2016 when this happened.
smith_winston_1984 t1_ir2ztta wrote
And he hand picked mayor McClueless, they are one in the same.
robzilla71173 t1_ir3hfu8 wrote
The city council made the decision, not the mayor, who wasn't McClure.
They're a similar demographic and both men wear eyeglasses. But otherwise they're very dissimilar.
VaderTower t1_ir3c9hk wrote
No it was UH residents that put pressure on Council to vote no. Council is pro business, they only reason they would vote business down is because it was THAT unpopular with residents affected.
Cloud_Disconnected t1_ir27f0j wrote
I, for one, am looking forward to another strip mall with a Subway, a Russell Cellular, and five empty suites.
SleeplessInMisery t1_ir3nlqb wrote
You forgot the CBD Kratom vape store.
Cloud_Disconnected t1_ir3pstj wrote
Three empty suites.
ogreatsnail t1_ir4xztx wrote
Don't think we won't eventually take down at least one dividing wall and install another church.
Cloud_Disconnected t1_ir53nwg wrote
Yes, but it has to have a weird name like "We chUrch" since it's in a strip mall.
Now that all the spaces are filled I can afford to build 25 terrible prefab drive-thru coffee shops.
DkChauncy t1_ir331p7 wrote
Lol facts!
polynesian_pineapple t1_ir3fsx5 wrote
And a nail salon.
Cloud_Disconnected t1_ir3prp7 wrote
Four empty suites.
Low_Tourist t1_ir3tkbb wrote
And a rotating locally owned boutique
Cloud_Disconnected t1_ir3x58g wrote
I guess I need to increase the rent, this place is taking off.
Top_Tiger_6969 t1_ir13jys wrote
I will never understand why everyone cares so much about a dilapidated house on a major intersection. If it was so important than why didn’t members of the u heights community purchase it?
VaderTower t1_ir17tg3 wrote
Exactly my sentiments. Everyone gets galvanized after someone comes up with a plan to do something they don't like.
Kind of like when a neighborhood that has woods behind it throws a fit when someone creates a neighborhood there and they bemoan the loss of the trees and woods. I get it, I'd hate it too, but I didn't do anything to secure my rights to it.
The real issue I see is that UH was so against this corner being rezoned as ANYTHING. It could have been rezoned and used as nonprofit housing that would have been used for low income family to stay and visit family at Mercy. But UH threw a fit about that. Now look, some ahole comes and buys all of the cheap property that no one wants because the neighborhood has made it virtually worthless.
I'm sorry I have no sympathy. I liked the houses, but I think the neighborhood shot themselves in the foot and are upset that they did so.
merrythoughts t1_ir1o5s5 wrote
When local communities take a stand against grassroots driven mixed use residential options, it almost always means it delays shit long enough for the big deal investors with the funds and know-how to plow down all rules/regulations and do whatever they want. (Ie build cheaply made luxury apartments that make a huge profit at first but after 5-10 years finally becomes affordableish housing.) see every metro area the last 10 years. Dealing with this same urban dev issue everywhere.
It does not help anyone except the out of town and super rich investors to block small fry shit.
Be pro-local mixed use residential zoning from the get go and it encourages community led/driven density.
VaderTower t1_ir3byq2 wrote
I might not fully agree with all of the points.
But I do wholeheartedly agree that small development helps local. No one out of state or our region is going to come and develop a negligible amount of residential/commercial units. Not worth it. But a local who made money and wants to break into the market would.
We ... need ... more ... mixed ... use.
Everyone complains about Springfield being carcentric. Guess how we fix that. Density. Density plus mixed use walkable neighborhoods that you don't need a car to buy groceries, go eat, or even get to work. Downtown has it, Commercial Street, Pickwick, and Chesterfield (Maybe Farmers Park).
nautilus573 t1_ir1vhed wrote
They're called NIMBY's.
feralfantastic t1_ir1yxa0 wrote
Not in my back yarders
VaderTower t1_ir3abtq wrote
Oh I know, it's so reductive though. No one admits they are, so you have to explain why they are being selfish and ridiculous.
Why_T t1_ir2skhm wrote
We built a business in a city once and while in a city council meeting getting our permits, some resident complained because he wanted a coffee shop or something on the land and if they approved my business then we’d never get it.
And the city council member just looked at him and said “I can forward you the information of the realtor selling the property. You’re more than welcome to put a bid in to buy it and develop it yourself.”
The guy was just stunned and was like, well I don’t want to build it. And the city council guy just told him to shut up then.
Status-Ad-9729 t1_ir2zl0q wrote
The inside of the house was beautiful went in to see it last time it was listed.. it had amazing potential so sad it's gone. Had I has the finances I would have bought it
22TopShelf22 t1_ir3fuob wrote
The place was a dump.the whole add on to the south had a leaky roof and was a mess
pile_of_holes t1_ir1508u wrote
So, AFAIK, the requested rezoning has not actually happened at this juncture, is that correct?
I can see the play here, go ahead and demolish the structures the community is so attached to so that the scene is set for the ‘might as well rezone it now since they’re gone, no use crying anymore’ card.
As a Galloway resident, I hope the UH folks are able to at the very least cost the developers a great deal of their time/energy/funds to get to their goal.
I understand the point that no one with the funds to live in those houses would have ever wanted to anymore, given the location. That said, the trend toward developers looking at a responsible rezoning as a simple process that is just a bump on the road toward using their new property to its highest and best potential, rather than as an opportunity to build consensus and develop property in a manner that is in kind with its context, is an all too common occurrence in Springfield.
You can look at Galloway and see a developer that bought a property that wasn’t ever even listed on the market for sale, who assumed that a rezoning would be quick and easy, so they could get to the business of erecting apartments blocks in a wholly R-SF area, and printing that money. Our neighborhood isn’t against developing that property. We’re against irresponsible development that is out of character for its surroundings. It could be developed as high end SF homes a lá ‘The Hill’, just past the CVS, or even perhaps some townhomes, and I’d wager there would be little complaint.
A successful re-zoning should not be a foregone conclusion when a developer decides to invest in an area. Cooperation and buy-in from local residents and stake-holders must be a significant part of the process, or this adversarial relationship between the city, its residents, and it’s history, will only continue to get worse.
I mourn the loss of these grand old homes. I hope that the UH neighborhood can come together and be a force that cannot be ignored as the process of redeveloping that corner continues.
And I urge anyone who is a potential voter in the City of Springfield to get out and vote NO on Question 1 when the time comes. Development is important, but it must be done in an informed manner, responsibly with regard to the environment and the surrounding community, and with the consideration and consent of the community.
Vote NO and show the City, the Chamber, the Money Men, that we are informed, unified, and demanding to be included in the processes that ultimately shape our neighborhoods going forward.
renixinq t1_ir1jy11 wrote
You nailed it.
I just moved to UH and have been involved with the neighborhood meetings. The developer here is not interested in engaging with the community unless he gets exactly what he wants.
It's also important everyone understand this is not just concern for the one house. The current plan calls for the other two houses on National and one on University to be demolished. The developer is also working to purchase the other homes down Sunshine to Hampton. He's looking to raze an entire block of this community without engaging them on long term plans.
Responsible developers work with their community to create value that can benefit everyone. What is happening here is a money grab plan and simple.
Vote no on rezoning Galloway. Show up to city council and let your voice be heard. We should expect better from our community.
22TopShelf22 t1_ir3g35w wrote
Does anyone remember the uh person calling the developers wife a cunt? I wouldn't want to work with your people either if I was him.
charliebatutis t1_ir5sj3f wrote
Yea, there's that
Elios000 t1_ir22iwc wrote
id add that intersection is already a mess and they want MORE commercial there?
MrZanzinger t1_ir10bal wrote
I hope that deed restriction is enforced and screws them.
chunkmoneyy t1_ir3bcwx wrote
my parents would drive me and my sister down national as kids on our way to daycare, we'd pass this house and I always daydreamed of buying it when I grew up. I gave a drawing of my future self with all my future birds in that house to my first grade teacher at Rountree.
growing up is hard
FriendshipIntrepid91 t1_ir2p0ej wrote
Everybody is blaming the developers, but the previous owner was only willing to sell at a price no potential homebuyer would pay.
pile_of_holes t1_ir2xdi4 wrote
A property owner has the right to ask what they like for their property in a real estate transaction. Their only responsibility is to pay the property taxes, and ensure the property is maintained such that it does not become a nuisance. Sadly, the former owner was obviously not holding up their end on that second point, and the City had the responsibility to enforce this, and didn’t.
The eventual buyer (developer) took on the responsibility to maintain the property. They purchased several aging homes on lots with single family zoning in place. They do not have the right to expect the zoning to be changed to fit their pre-existing idea of the highest and best use for the property, but rather the option to go through the process of re-zoning, which, in the City of Springfield, involves being forthright and open about the development plan, and gathering feedback from the community in instances where the property is within the bounds of a recognized neighborhood association, as is the case here.
The fact that the seller may have wanted more than the property was worth with the zoning that was in place is irrelevant.
The fact that the developer bought it anyway, and has taken the stance that they are doing us a favor, but will only do it if allowed to do so in exactly the way they want, is what I believe has caused so much bristling among the neighbors. The houses were doomed years ago, and I think reasonable people will agree.
The developer is catching heat because they clearly know what is best, and have done fuck all beyond conducting the required community meeting to try and gain any support, or show that they are open to modifying their plan to make it more palatable to their neighbors, who have legitimate concerns.
FriendshipIntrepid91 t1_ir32s0b wrote
That's my point, the owner was asking a price no homebuyer was going to pay. So they knew a developer of some sort was the only way they were going to sell. So everybody in the neighborhood is mad at this developer but not their former neighbors who started this whole situation.
xchadrickx t1_ir3a32i wrote
An item is only worth what someone is willing to pay. I see no fault of the seller who received the price the open market would bring.
If other comments are to be believed, the home could have been converted into a B&B for people with loved ones in the hospital. The neighborhood opposed this, the house was sold at market rate, this is the outcome.
In some cases a home is worth nothing and the property it sits on is worth much more. That's unfortunately just the world we live in, not a world created by the seller. If you were going to sell a piece of real estate would you take a considerable amount less money because you were concerned it may become a vape shop and iPhone screen repair suite? Of course not, because then it personally affects you. Considering the reality of the situation it's not hard to understand.
FriendshipIntrepid91 t1_ir3bpaz wrote
But the house wasn't sold at market rate. That's why it no longer exists. The developer is hoping to recoup his money by rezoning the lot.
I personally would not take less, but I'm also not one of the people complaining about rezoning.
xchadrickx t1_ir3ddwj wrote
The rate is what someone on the open market is willing to pay, I explained this as simply as possible. If you aren't willing to take a lower amount out of some false sense of altruism, why do you not feel silly insisting that someone else should? Why would you hold someone to a standard that they must make a sacrifice that does not benefit them, when you just stated you would not do the same?
FriendshipIntrepid91 t1_ir4tvwi wrote
What one niche developer is willing to pay for a parcel of land is not market rate for a home. If that house was listed anywhere near market rate, it would have sold 10x over in this market. The homeowner knew about the possibility for development at that intersection so they held out for a non homebuyer.
I'm not blaming the actual homeowner. I'm asking why all the people in that neighborhood that seem to care so much only blame the developer, I explained this as simply as possible.
xchadrickx t1_ir4u0na wrote
Did the property sell? That's what the market was willing to pay.
FriendshipIntrepid91 t1_ir5l6s2 wrote
Not sure if you are a simpleton or if you truly do not have the ability to differentiate between residential property and commercial property. Commercial property is worth significantly more. The house was not priced to sell in the "housing market". And now the city will give in to the developer and rezone it commercial. Because as you so clearly know, money is all that matters in this world.
xchadrickx t1_ir5owzw wrote
And what is this property going to be used for?
VaderTower t1_ir3ckqu wrote
Bravo, you explained the situation very well.
Economagicman t1_ir46872 wrote
I am definitely in agreement with putting some blame on the previous sellers.
If you love the neighborhood you have lived in, you should consider the person you sell to. As long as every 2nd house from every corner on the sunshine National to Campbell corridor stays in the hands of a local person for their personal home or as a long term rental, no commercial will ever be allowed in due to the road frontage not being large enough to handle enough entrances and exits.
I am not a fan of Duda, and it makes me sad to see it ripped down but I also agree it is theirs and they can tear down if they want as they own it.
I am hoping if all the homes do get torn down, zoning remains residential and it creates a spectacularly large lot for a new construction that is wonderful to look at. I added up the properties based on Zillow and I think they would have over an acre, which would be an amazing opportunity for a new home build given its location.
Sally_twodicks t1_ir32vgy wrote
God damn it! I fucking loved those black crescent moon shudders. I loved that house.
throwawayspfd t1_ir1iauv wrote
The problem is the will of the people and how it directly impacts them. The whole neighborhood highly opposed this yet the city said okay do it. When does it stop? When will the citizens voices matter? It won’t stop. Don’t give me the BS either that the citizens of Springfield will benefit from a new yoga studio, retail store, and over priced pasty shop that will go in there. There are literally open spots in the strip mall across the street. For that matter, openings everywhere across the city. The city only cares about you because you are able working walking taxable entity. If you don’t fall in that category, get fucked. Money always over morals. It always will be this way. Downvote me all you want but I’m fucking right and you know it.
VaderTower t1_ir3d9yv wrote
So I'm curious, where should development happen? Poor neighborhoods that can't argue as loudly? Outside of the city so we sprawl even further?
What IS okay to tear down, and what's not?
Ultimately Springfield has turned from a city of new development to redevelopment. We don't have green fields like Republic and Nixa. We don't want to spread out further. We want and need to up our density.
[deleted] t1_ir67lzs wrote
[deleted]
VaderTower t1_ir6o3p0 wrote
Individual property rights are fine and part of this, but this specific development is at the heart of our current debate for overall city development.
Here's the thing, no one wants to live next to a commercial property, period.
If you take into account everyone's "right" to quiet enjoyment on their SF lot. You'll have no commercial property anywhere. Let alone industrial. Why would anyone want a home next to a commercial property?
So inferring your concept it's ONLY those lots that are currently commercial can be commercial, and residential can't ever become commercial. You could say the same thing for every single commercial property south of Sunshine. Everything there was Agricultural or Residential prior to 1940s. Should that not exist as it threatened the farmers "quiet enjoyment"?
I get the points, but it's an undefendable argument because it's entirely based on Nimby'ism. Development is great! .... Just not next to me and my investment.
throwawayspfd t1_ir3f0pk wrote
Who is we in this situation? I welcome the expansion of Springfield. I’m sure a lot of people do. Plenty of space all around/in Springfield without destroying historical homes, jamming up one of the busiest intersections, pissing off a whole neighborhood. You’re really missing the point of there being plenty of other places for development. Like right across the street. A few blocks down, Tai Peppers has been sitting. The strips on both sides of TP are empty. There is an empty bank down the street further. A vacant lot behind Culver’s. South of the corner where subway and the flower shop use to be. Using your knowledge, let’s tear down parts of the mall and develop there. Sears is empty. It’s a huge lot. Old Toys R Us is empty. These are already zoned for business development and are literally sitting empty. Or is it not OKAY to tear down a run down department store to preserve the historical architecture.
VaderTower t1_ir3o75a wrote
We is the residents of Springfield.
Thai Peppers and the other 2 adjacent buildings would be great to tear down and build new mixed use on. I totally agree. The reason that hasn't happened is because the owners presumably want more than it's worth, and developers can't make the proforma work.
But your argument is essentially ONLY currently zoned commercial lots can be commercial lots OR we can make Springfield even more carcentric by developing outside of populated areas. So now the farmers out there and all the people who want quiet lives are pissed off. Get how literally someone is going to be pissed off and complain no matter where developers build a building?
Developers look for opportunities. If Sears was for sale, and Simon wanted to sell it at a decent price it would be redeveloped SO quickly.
Lastly the homes were demolished, a private owner has the right to tear down anything they want in Springfield, unless it has special protected status which is voluntary and rare. Even if it is protected locally, then it only stops the owner from demo for 60 days.
laffingriver t1_ir2gnly wrote
all these businesses and nowhere to live.
Apprehensive_Tart814 t1_ir35eiu wrote
That's the least of this fucked towns worries trust me
Live_Oak123 t1_ir4a445 wrote
Kinda rich coming from you, isn’t it?
Apprehensive_Tart814 t1_ir5l7np wrote
What's that supposed to mean
22TopShelf22 t1_ir7kq5z wrote
Yeah, I'm scratching my head on that remark too
22TopShelf22 t1_ir3g9n8 wrote
Well said. I'll take crime for 1,000 Alex.
lifepuzzler t1_ir2afzs wrote
Oh damn. I even went there for a party once. How the times change.
merrythoughts t1_ir1n2wv wrote
I will put money on a cheaply built, overpriced apartment complex by an out of town investor will fill the void! Great job UH!
Ardvark-Dongle t1_ir3cnfz wrote
Lived in SGF all my life, and the community rallying behind a derelict and abandoned home on a busy and main commercial intersection is absurd. Its a commercial corridor. New housing and shopping opportunities are what the city needs to thrive. This is growth, and its what cities do. People should be glad developers still see value in their neighborhoods.
SGF is growing and changing all the time. It has ever since my great grandparents lived here, back when south Campbell was farmlands. New investments will likely upgrade your property values as well! Since they will be removing all the blighted homes on the intersection.
MSUsugar_Bear8653 t1_ir4r0t8 wrote
What about traffic flow…anybody think about that? It’s a hard intersection to get in and out with it being so busy. Even an ambulance has a hard time getting out sometimes. Kind of like at sunshine and Campbell when everybody is trying to get Starbucks and Chick-fil-a…it’s frustrating when cars are lined up in main traffic trying to pull in.. that’s just my thought. I could careless about the house. I wouldn’t live on a super busy intersection. But if I want to get home after work I don’t want to worry about sitting in an already congested street with people waiting to pull into a business trying to find parking.
[deleted] t1_ir6616t wrote
[deleted]
Apprehensive_Tart814 t1_ir3oe1g wrote
Not to mention all the Homeless that Noone seems to care about or the rapes that the cops cover up and the disappearances hmmnmm
periodbloodsausage t1_ir5xse4 wrote
I keep seeing people say the developers didn't want to work with the community? Didn't the residents show up to a meeting with the developers and curse him and his wife out? Pretty sure an apology was issued because a couple of the residents got super feisty..
Jimithyashford t1_ir6wk7h wrote
I also dislike seeing an old historic home get demolished, but it's an unfortunate reality that the kind of the people with the money to buy and upkeep a big grand old Victorian in town aren't the kind of people who wanna live at the corner of two major road ways between across the street from a hospital and a half mile away from a bunch of partying college housing.
The people with that kind of money go buy some river front acreage south of town and build a McMansion.
​
And a house nobody wants to live in, especially old ones, well what else is gonna happen?
Apprehensive_Tart814 t1_ir42cid wrote
Probably going to be part of the Hospital that Noone will be going to its going to get half done then they quit watch
[deleted] t1_ir1145l wrote
[deleted]
smith_winston_1984 t1_ir1hqfg wrote
About time, it has been a nostalgic eyesore for too long.
Apprehensive_Tart814 t1_ir2meau wrote
How do you figure there's plenty more nasty ass falling down houses that shoul1d be to1rn down yet a beautiful house gone for why Disgusting Missouri
smith_winston_1984 t1_ir2zj4c wrote
It could have been restored into a b&b but the neighbors threw a fit then. I for one am tired of hearing them whine. It's not their property it's none of their business.
University heights neighborhood, "Like I mean oh my gosh, can you believe someone is going to rent out their house? Like, please, there will be different people every night having sex there. Might as well call it a whore house. Think of the children that will be exposed. Oh and the traffic! Can you just imagine 2 or maybe even 3 cars a night! Oh the horror! "
Restricted_Access_06 t1_ir1vfxj wrote
So glad to live in Oak Knoll/Cinnamon on the Hill where we can fight developers effectively.
Our horse farm back yard will remain a horse farm and not another car wash/retirement apartments.
GeneralTonic t1_ir17gjr wrote
>In 2015, a woman named Kathy Penrod wanted to purchase the home and convert it into a hospitality house, offering low-cost overnight accommodations for people with a loved one in the hospital. >...
>Residents in the neighborhood vehemently opposed Penrod’s idea, and Springfield City Council denied her request for a conditional use permit in 2016.
Boy they sure put a stop to that awful B&B idea before it had a chance to establish a valid use for the building that kept it intact. Good job, Springfield neighborinos!
Never let a good idea get in the way of no idea.