A bum steer on historic schools in St. Louis
Shenandoah School, 3412 Shenandoah Avenue. Built in 1926 and designed by Rockwell Milligan. (Photo by Rob Powers, www.builtstlouis.net)
The consulting firm hired by St. Louis Public School’s special administrative board to perform a comprehensive review of district buildings and facilities is testing public sentiment about historic school structures.
That’s the right thing to do. St. Louis Public Schools has some magnificent structures in its inventory of buildings, and the public’s interest in how those buildings are best handled should be a significant factor in planning.
The problem is that it appears historic buildings are not being given a fair shake.
At the public engagement session I attended at Carr Lane school, the facilitator asked participants cast votes on the importance they attached to “historic preservation,” with categories including “very important,” “important,” “neutral,” “somewhat important” and “not important.”
But in explaining what was meant by “historic preservation,” the facilitator editorialized that “old” is “not necessarily historic,” and “historic requires different restoration treatment,” which he quantified by suggesting to participants that they should think in terms of “adding another zero.”
Historic preservation increases cost by a factor of 10? This treatment leaves much to be desired — in terms of clarity, accuracy and fairness.
I spoke to Michael Allen, deputy director the Landmark Association of St. Louis, about this. He attended one of the public engagement sessions this week. The moderator there also used the “add a zero” expression. Mr. Allen had a lot to say on the subject, which he summarized for me in an email:
The flippant comment made at the public forum about historic preservation adding an “extra zero” to any maintenace cost belies the real problem the St. Louis Public Schools faces regarding facilities: deferred maintenance. There would be no need for large repair budget where an “extra zero” could be added if the current inventory of schools had been maintained. The needs for technology, improved phsyical conditions, lead-free classrooms and other impediments to education outline an extensive scope of work that has little to do with the age or historic nature of the school buildings, but the nature of inconsistent maintenance and planning. The old buildings cannot be blamed for the district’s problems.
From 1988-1991, the district implemented a $200 million Capital Improvement Program that led to rehabilitation of 100 buildings. The program was based on preservation of existing buildings, as well as defining architectural features. The district and its architects collaborated with Landmarks Association to ensure that new cafeteria and gymnasium additions did not detract from existing buidlings and that lead abatement of windows included replication or repair of historic windows on public elevations of rehabilitated schools. Landmarks had just completed an architectural survey of every public school building built before 1960 and created a mechanism for listing historic schools designed by celebrated district architect William B. Ittner in the National Register of Historic Places. Using our survey and expertise, the district ensured that long-needed upgrades were done in a way that respected the character of historic schools. The collaborative effort added no additional cost to the improvement program. Actually, the window program ended up costing less since lead abatement and repair allowed for many windows to be retained.
There is widespread recognition that the district’s historic schools are among the nation’s finest. These schools exemplify our city’s aspirations, provide neighborhoods with architectural anchors and provide students with a sense of their city’s history. These are precious resources the district should retain. The cost of historic preservation is smaller long-term than the cost of new construction, and this district disparately needs to overcome past propensity to avoid long-range planning. Landmarks has urged the district and MGT of America to consult our historic schools survey and review the Capital Improvement Program collaboration. The information and model for good decision-making exist, although institutional memory at SLPS may be waning.
Some schools will close and some will consolidate, but the historic buildings remain cultural and institutional assets. Disposition should be an option of last resort, and the district should consult with preservation professionals in examining all possible options. When closure and sale is appropriate, long-term vacancy should be avoided and all historic schools should be sold only on the condition that the buyer will not raze them. The district can create demolition protection schools have by voluntarily allowing all eligible schools to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The facilities management plan must seriously and explicitly promote historic preservation of the city’s irreplaceable schools.
This is sound advice that the facilities planners would do well to heed.
Especially if the small number of participants at the session I attended are representative of broader community sentiment.
Even with the moderator’s “extra zero” negative spin, 66 percent voted “historic preservation” to be “very important” (45%) or “important” (21%).
Eddie Roth writes about education, social justice, public safety, transportation, legal affairs and historic preservation. He joined the Post-Dispatch editorial page in 2008 after six years as an editorial writer with the Dayton Daily News. But he is not new to St. Louis. Eddie grew up in Webster Groves and south St. Louis County. He's a lawyer who for many years practiced with a downtown firm, and was active in civic affairs, including serving a term on the St. Louis Police Board. He and his wife, Jeanne, and their three daughters, Emily, Julia and Alice, live in the Shaw Neighborhood.
When it comes to community organizing, he endorses Quentin Crisp's advice: Rather than keeping up with the Joneses, it's better to pull them down to your level. 
A good example of this is sitting on Garrison and Natural Bridge. The old Central High school, the oldest high school west of the Mississippi River sits abandoned. For sale, $1.7 million dollars.
It will not be long, if it has not already started, they will be breaking and and stripping the place.
But the city of St. Louis is well known for allowing landmark buildings to be torn down and parts of it’s history lost forever. It’s not only the Public schools. Take a look at how the Arch Diocese allows these old wonderful churches to go to hell.
One prime example of this sits on Hogan and North Market, the former St. Liborius Church. Once known as the cathederal of north St. Louis.
It’s stripped of everything and used as a storage warehouse by the Arch Diocese.
The problem is that the cart has been placed before the horse. Like cash and quality teachers (and quality administrators), facilities are an ASSET that must be leveraged to successfully implement a strategic plan. I have seen no evidence of a strategic plan for overcoming the tradition of poor management and poorer results.
It is inappropriate, and impossible, to assess whether the existing facilities are meeting the needs unless those needs are documented. Then a consultant will be able to determine whether the existing facility can be renovated to meet those needs or if it should be replaced.
The public MUST have a role in developing a viable strategic plan for the SLPS, in prioritizing action plans that include RESOURCES, and in determining appropriate metrics for measuring progress.
I couldn’t agree more with this article. I have attended a meeting as well and it seemed clear to me that MGT had already made up their mind that the need to rehabilitate, retro-fit, and maintain existing school buildings was not a part of the plan that they were excited about. What they need to understand is that the long-term health of the SLPS is predicated upon the health of the neighborhoods and communities that they serve. The buildings, as occupied, functioning schools, provide neighborhood anchors. Their stunning physical presence inspires pride and helps create neighborhood identity. The schools provide outlets for community cooperation (such as collection and donation of supplies). The schools make our neighborhoods stronger and strong neighborhoods attract residents. Residents bring taxes, they pick up trash and maintain their property, they turn their outside lights on at night and call the police when they see suspicious activity, and in some cases, residents enroll their kids in the SLPS. Vacant school buildings on the other hand attract vandals and thieves and impede the progress of a neighborhood. True long-term planning for the SLPS would involve identifying strategies to make neighborhoods and communities stronger. Without strong communities the SLPS will certainly continue their downward spiral. The school buildings can be allies in a true long-term plan, but the district needs to stop looking for quick fixes.
The consultants’ online survey is designed in the same slanted manner as these meetings, with leading (and misleading) questions geared toward coming to their desired conclusion: that we need to close and/or demolish dozens of historic schools and build anew. For example, one question reads something like “How important are quality heating/cooling/ventilation systems for our schools?” Of course, people will rate that highly, after which MVP will say “parents are very concerned about their children’s health, and these shoddy old schools are unhealthy and would cost too much money to update, so maintaining them is against the community’s wishes.” In this case, the nationally renowned designs of the district’s historic schools are lauded in part because of their attention to improving interior conditions for students (large windows to let in more natural light, high ceilings to keep classrooms cool during the Saint Louis heat, etc), though the consultants would rather distract parents and the community away from this fact because “new” always seems easier and better. Mr. Allen is entirely correct in stating that any problems with these schools are the result of mismanagement and not of inherent flaws in the buildings themselves. Retrofitting them and bringing them up to modern standards is not only feasible but far less expensive than demolition and new construction; to state otherwise, as the consultants have, is not only misleading but rather ignorant. These schools have been around for one hundred years or more and, God willing, can last for hundreds more to continue serving Saint Louis’ students and neighborhoods. I doubt you would be able to say the same for the low-budget new construction with computer-lined classrooms the consultants will try to pitch as the solution for the district’s deeply ingrained problems.
Sorry, Cardinals fan- by “MVP” I meant “MGT.” Obviously I do not consider this consulting firm very valuable.
I had intended to make the following comments at the public forum held on Tuesday (12/9/08) at Soldan, but there was no opportunity to do so. Thank you for your article (above). I’d like to share my thoughts here.
One of the very few things of indisputable excellence that the St. Louis Public Schools system has going for it at the present time, is incomparably outstanding architecture, of which this magnificent school building – Soldan High School – is a prime example.
Further, I would point out that less than 20 years ago, the people of this City authorized over $200 million to be spent on a Capital Improvements Program that completely renovated more than 100 schools – replacing windows, restoring masonry and roofs, building gymnasium and cafeteria additions, totally renovating interior spaces, heating, electrical and plumbing systems, and more. A mere 14 years ago, a nearly $10 million project by the firm of William B. Ittner, Architects brought vibrant renewal to glorious Soldan. And numerous other respected architectural firms wrought similar restorations at schools throughout the City. The Administration then promised the voters to adopt a rigorous program of periodic maintenance to safeguard this enormous investment by the citizens in their school buildings. To date, this promise has gone unfulfilled. Virtually zero exterior painting has taken place, and other maintenance has been purposefully and systematically deferred as well. The trust of the tax-paying public has been cynically broken and cast aside.
The effort by the current Administration, the media, and others the to characterize these school buildings as outdated and even dilapidated is a gross distortion of reality and one more example of floating the “big lie” and counting on public amnesia to lend it credence.
Well, whatever happens, Hamilton School is the most magnificent elementary school building anywhere, bar none.