Submitted by Jimithyashford t3_yp3xb9 in springfieldMO
I figured it has something to do with the house that was torn down on the corner of national and sunshine, but I’m having a hard time figuring out what exactly.
Nobody “took” that house. Right? It was for sale and a developer bought it. These signs say “save our homes” but save them from what? There’s no imminent domain threat or anything is there? Nobody is “taking” their homes or threatening to are they?
What am I missing?
Were all the homes around the house which was torn down listed for sale with RE agents? If the neighborhood was so concerned why didn’t they just buy the properties?
I don’t think the neighborhood had the funds to purchase the homes. I believe the developer has bought 8 homes total—homes along national, sunshine, and university street.
I think he’s owned them for a few years bc they are currently rented out as Airbnbs from my understanding.
Who in their right minds wokld want to live in an apartment/loft right next to that busy street? What a horrible idea to try and make it commercial
The developer told me that he doesn’t plan to knock down the homes but he does plan to move them in tact. This one was just in such bad shape that there was no salvaging it.
They filed to demo the others, so color me skeptical
Hmm, interesting…I’m just going by what he told me (I just met him)…I guess we’ll see!
And that is what happened Tuesday morning as a wrecking crew demolished the 90-year-old colonial-style home. More demolitions could occur as Be Kind & Merciful, Duda's development company, has applied for demolition permits for the homes at 1745 S. National Ave., 1739 S. National Ave. and 1119 E. Sunshine St, according to online records.
Even if he opts to move the homes, the area will still be under consideration for rezoning. So the neighborhoods concerns will still be the same.
He also said that there is a meeting — I think tomorrow night? For the neighborhood and anybody else who is interested where they plan to unveil what they hope to do.
I think the meeting is tonight!
Oh! I hope a lot of people show up and that they will come to an understanding of some kind.
My understanding is that the neighbors have opposed using that house for anything other than a family living there. They even were against someone using it as a guesthouse for families who have a family member in the hospital. No one wanted to buy it so it sat abandoned for years. Then a developer bought it — I actually just met him bc he is a neighbor. He told me the house was in such disrepair that the wood was rotting, and the people who had tried to live there had astronomical utility costs because it wasn’t well-insulated.
I pulled utility bills from 2020-2022 for the property, which is public info and the highest average monthly bill for a quarter was $373.04 for July-September 2022. Most others were in the $90-$150 range, that is actually really good for a 4400 square foot house.
It also isn’t a shock that an older large house built 90 years ago would need some updates.
I call bs on $90-150 utilities for. 4400 sq ft home. That might be just for lights and no AC or heat.
Same. I have solar and new construction and my utilities run about $110 a month
Look it up yourself, 1755 S National Ave
>1755 S National Ave
Yep, it's power only and not enough to match up with actual habitation.
Combined with zero gas or water usage, that tells me those bills are basically for having things connected.
Quite probably, but we know the developers claim they were having $800 utility bills as part of why they tore it down, the evidence through CU’s website shows that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Ralph Duda III with BK&M said the tenants that were living in the home were moved to a different property, and the building was boarded up because the house is deteriorating.
“There was issue after issue,” Duda said. “Their utility bill was close to $800 a month. The insulation is terrible. The windows are bad. There’s frequent leaks. Drains don’t drain. The HVAC air-conditioning unit blew out (and) a lot of wood rot around the house.
I walked through that house 10 years ago and it was falling apart then. I don’t see any way or reason to save this house.
It’s been torn down, so there is no saving it. However Steve Plaster dropped some coin into in the mid 2010’s and it looked decent.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1755-S-National-Ave-Springfield-MO-65804/50264198_zpid/
I don't know when those pics are from, but you can see in them that it had mold and rot issues
Developers that want to tear down something WANT it to be in bad shape because the more of an eyesore it is the less resistance there will be in demolishing it.
I used to live in Webb City near Joplin and there were a bunch of large old homes along a road that had become very busy over the years and there was increasing pressure to convert to commercial but there was a lot of resistance in the community. People really didn't want to live in the homes on such a busy road with 4 lanes of traffic. But others didn't like the idea of losing the large trees, pretty homes etc and just seeing more strip malls and fast food.
One developer bought a bunch of the homes and to appease the town he actually MOVED several of them. He was supposed to leave the large trees in place but all of a sudden oops one day the equipment operated apparently didn't get the memo and cleared them to make way for a large strip mall, parking lot and fast food restaurant.
Over time most of the homes have sat abandoned and rotted to the point no one cared anymore and one by one they've been torn down to make way for a dollar store, car wash, dominoes, dairy queen, several strip malls. It's a long game but eventually developers can win approval through basic neglect.
A lie is a lie. No reason to believe any of his other claims. He's demonstrated that he is dishonest.
Thanks for the info.
The house has been empty for years. That’s probably just basic electricity turned on there.
Someone definitely had been living there this year, per the guy that tore it down.
They are against every proposed development that has been offered up. Pure NIMBY.
[deleted]
The problem is that the land deeds for University Heights have a clause written into them that the property cannot be zoned for commercial or multiple family residences. The original wording for those deeds is nearly 100 years old and the developer is trying to change it without the people's input through the ballot box.
Well today is the day voters approve it so will all of you be quiet after that? You don’t own the roads, the park, or the development in this town. It’s getting a little obnoxious.
You are confusing the Galloway Village zoning and efforts at National and Sunshine, there is no ballot measure related to this property currently.
I am not confusing the ballot measures. If this measure had been approved it would give an open door to affect the zoning of this area as well. Why do you think the people in University Heights were so opposed to it?
Springfield has a specific path to override the zoning board, the Galloway project ended up getting 70% no. Turns out developers aren’t just able to do whatever they want.
And the developer doesn't own any of that either so maybe he ought to stop pushing developments in areas that they aren't wanted. There are plenty of areas that are available for development that don't require changing the zoning or need special consideration.
When you don’t understand how development works…
I completely understand it but I also understand keeping historical things preserved. You are probably the type of person that would destroy a beautiful old building that has been around for 100+ years and put up a sterile ugly building in the name of progress.
Development is meant to meet the needs of the entire community. You may get a voice, but it’s far from the only one considered. City leaders, engineers and the business and education community fully support this project.Full speed ahead!
Yes but sometimes those people don't have the community in mind They have kickbacks, bribes, and just pure profit in mind with disregard to what is needed or wanted.
And I love how you are saying my voice is only one voice, which you don't want to hear but yet your voice should be heard and valued more. Why on Earth is your opinion any more valid than mine? (Hint: it is not!)
That pure conjecture and you know it. Can’t you disagree with real arguments?
For the rest of the city, this is an objective issue about development and business and the needs of Springfield. For you and your neighbors it is an emotional decision.
I don't even live in that neighborhood so it is not emotional for me and my neighbors. I do feel that we don't need to tear down every old building in the name of progress. Take a look at thr apartments they built where the YWCA used to be downtown, they were built so quickly and so poorly that they have had nothing but problems since being built. Just what the students that occupy that building want because nothing says home like backed up sewage, electrical issues, and other problems.
Well you can be quiet now the people have spoken with their votes!
I know the neighborhood is concerned about the property being rezoned as commercial, but I don't believe that is their biggest concern.
The main reason I've heard is that those streets to the NW of National and Sunshine have always been low traffic, only used by people that actually live there.
Part of building right on that corner will be that the entrances and exits from the business will have to be on University Street. Maybe entrances, but how is anyone going to leave a business on the corner of one of the busies intersections in town? So, instead of a the quiet side street they've had for years, now there will be a lot more traffic.
I get people saying, "Who cares, it's legal and get over it", but I've been in the same situation in another area of town. A developer comes in and says, "No really, it will totally not change anything for you guys." But, now I have 10x more traffic down what used to be a very quiet side street in front of my house, accidents, people parking where they shouldn't, etc.
Just saying they're not just some NIMBY activists not wanting historic houses torn down, they're worried about the impacts a little further out.
> But, now I have 10x more traffic down what used to be a very quiet side street in front of my house, accidents, people parking where they shouldn't, etc.
A couple other honorable mentions is all the broken glass (beer bottles) and used syringes that come with more traffic.
>What am I missing?
The fact that what you live next door to is a huge influence on your quality of life and property value. I mean, they may not take their actual homes, but they don't want the property next door rezoned into a gas station.
My buddy bought an abandoned house from the city and then that afternoon after closing they bulldozed it to the ground. I don't think it is related to what you're talking about, more just that the city doesn't know wtf it's doing
"they" being the city
Oh dang I'd be pissed
[deleted]
So I feel like I have a clear understanding here of what the people in that community DON’T want, which is for homes in this neighborhood to be anything other than single family dwellings, and presumably single family dwellings owned by the “right” kind of people, with the money to maintain them in a snazzy well manicured upper middle class kind of way.
So then what I don’t get is….what DO they want then? If you’ve got a big fancy house, an old, expensive, kinda a money pit, type of house, and it’s on the market for years and years, nobody wants to own it as a primary single family dwelling….well what then? I mean eventually someone has to do something with it or it will become derelict and fall into ruin and be full of squatters. So what do they want? I mean I know what they want, for these houses to be bought by doctors and lawyers to keep the neighborhood like it is, but most people with the kind of money to buy a big century old money pit are instead buying McMansions out by the river, they don’t wanna live in the middle of town anymore. So if the houses aren’t being bought….then what?
There are many other neighborhoods in town full of what we’re once grand of upper middle class or rich person houses, that are now in terrible shape or are trap houses. If someone doesn’t do something with them, isn’t the the fate they are inviting?
They want a single family home to be put up, not commercial property, apartments, or a combination of the two. The biggest problem with that specific property being turned commercial is that is the 2nd busiest intersection in the city and to add more traffic by making it a commercial property is just insane! The developer also wanted to knock down the other three 1930s mansions along National and get University Avenue closed right there to build whatever monstrosity he wants to build.
You're missing the point, James. The house on the corner of National was just what people focused on because it was historic.
The issue isn't that one house. The people who live in the University Heights neighborhood will now have commercial traffic where they've never had it before. The development won't just be that one property. Because they're building on one of the busiest intersections in the city, the main ingress and egress will have to be on what used to be quiet side streets.
You can disagree with them and say it's progress, but at least know the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with anyone caring about the "right kind" of people. If you'd read the articles, you'd know that it's going to be a doctor's office, retail space, and "executive lofts".
The right kind of people, you say.
Sorry, but by “right kind of people” I meant “people who have the financial resources to maintain that neighborhood in the condition it’s it”
Cause if you’ve got these big empty houses that the wealthy folks have moved out of, and you insist that is can only be a single family dwelling and you can’t tear it down and build lower income housing, then you are left with only two courses: either they stay empty and eventually fall into ruin, or the cost goes down down down until eventually you get a lower income buyer who cannot afford to maintain these grand old manicured properties and they fall into disrepair anyway.
I under stand their concern. But I don’t understand their solution. What on earth do they want? They want the “right” kind of people to buy the houses and live in them and keep them pretty. Right?
But it seems like Those buyers just aren’t there. Wasn’t that house on the corner for sale of ages?
punkass-bookjockey t1_ivh8w7v wrote
The developers who bought the house also bought several home around it—in University Heights. They want to rezone it for commercial, retail, possibly loft style living as well. The city hasn’t had a zoning meeting yet but the developers knocked down the house anyway.
The neighborhood is worried they’ll continue to knock down historic homes and basically destroy the neighborhood as they know it, albeit through traffic, home values, etc.