Jump to content

Bye bye Biondi


bonwich

Recommended Posts

 

-is the SLU campus perfect? not to me but it is good, very good, imo

-is the SLU campus better/more attractive than when I attended? exponentially so, imo and that includes the surrounding area, at least for the Frost Campus 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

20 hours ago, hsmith19 said:

 

I think we have more agreement than argument and most of our disagreement involves semantics. Also, just as point of reference, hsmith, how old are you? I'm 56, so that's what shapes a lot of my perspective.

Wash U's Redevelopment Corp has done tons of great things, but that doesn't change the fact that their campus is walled off from the developments you're talking about in a way that SLU isn't, even today. They didn't need a Biondi to build a "fortress" because their campus was built as one as soon as they moved west in the late 19th Century, before most of the surrounding neighborhoods even existed as we know them today. Their students have to worry less about crime because they can walk to dorms and classes and not ever venture into the City in a way SLU students still can't, even after Biondi and his statues and dog parks. If SLU is "suburban" in style, then Wash U. is far more suburban, even after all the planning efforts surrounding the Med School.

Correct, WashU's campus proper didn't need to be a fortress given its high-end residential buffer on three sides. And yet they reached out many blocks to the north to nurture an entertainment district that became one of their selling points. They also arguably stabilized some of the south-of-Delmar apartment market by buying up many of the buildings. They "got it," IMO. 

Contrast this to SLU, which borders Grand Center. SLU nominally participated in Grand Center redevelopment with Biondi on the GC board, but his ego and Schoemehl's couldn't fit in the same room together and SLU, at least for many years of GC's existence, did virtually nothing to improve the arts district that's immediately adjacent to its campus. As noted, Biondi demolished buildings that could have joined the campus and GC, and he discouraged students from going in that direction off campus.

Also, and this is apocryphal but I believe it to be true, SLU once had the opportunity to co-locate its theatre department (and maybe also its music department) in Grand Center, which really would have tied the two entities together. But they walked from the deal. 

One other perhaps interesting point told to me by a SLU VP was that Biondi was actively working to implode Lewis/The Coronado before the Gills stepped forward. 

As for the Med campus, Biondi improved it by expanding to the south but also pulled a Father Borgia to the east of Grand by lying through his teeth about "moving the med school" just so he could knock down a building he didn't like. 

I won't argue that SLU has matched the urban design or community development efforts at Wash U. (a school with world class architecture and social work programs is always going to have a leg up there), but looking at the two campuses as urban environments is still an apples to oranges comparison for all of these reasons. I also won't argue that Biondi was right to tear down all the buildings he did, but the end result today is still an attractive urban campus that, post-Biondi, has a chance to fit in well with the growth in the surrounding area. Could it be even better today if Biondi had been less bulldozer-happy? Sure, but I hear very few people saying they prefer the pre-1987 SLU campus to what we have today. The campus today would also be more urban and more cool had Mill Creek Valley never been wiped out long before Biondi got his mitts on the area. There are all kinds of what-ifs, but SLU today has an opportunity a school like Wash U. will never have to blend into the middle of a truly urban neighborhood.

Remember, however, that SLU had perhaps not a world-class but at least a nationally reputed Urban Planning program. And Biondi (and perhaps some of his predecessors) utterly ignored what was taught at the school. 

Another consideration that's come up in other OT threads in the past several months is how much of the campus improvement can be attributed to Biondi and how much was the overall trend of luxury campuses. 

Biondi also would have quite blithely destroyed much of what became Midtown Alley and the Locust Business District if not for the not-entirely-successful efforts at resistance bythe entrepreneurial types who turned it into what it is today. He was ready to (and did) bulldoze stuff to prep for the version of Chaifetz that never materialized. 

SLU has had the opportunity to blend into its surrounding neighborhood for decades. It simply actively resisted doing so, with most of that resistance occurring during Biondi's tenure. 

One last note on Wash U.'s Redevelopment Corp--over the past few years, it has worked more and more closely with SLU's Center for Sustainability, and a lot of their personnel are graduates of SLU's Planning & Development program. Their last Executive Director before the current one graduated from our program a few years ahead of me. Our program is still tiny and therefore unaccredited, but it's the only one with a Masters in planning anywhere in the state, and one of a handful in the Midwest. It also breathed one of the biggest collective sighs of relief once Biondi finally left. But my point is that Wash U. and SLU are working together, and if anything the SLU CoS gets under-recognized for the role it plays in broader efforts at regional collaboration.

On these points we are totally aligned. At least SLU nowadays recognizes that PR is vital to a school's reputation, but back when, it consistently got overwhelmed by WashU's PR machine. For example, when my old man had a heart transplant at SLU 30 years ago, he was at that time probably the oldest recipient to date in the country. And I'm reasonably sure SLU was doing more transplants then than WashU. But the only recognition SLU got for my dad's transplant was when I wrote about it several months later.

In general, collaboration between WashU and SLU used to be a fantasy, and the recognition of its benefits in more recent times,and the actual collaboration, is terrific.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not agree more that collaboration between Wash U and SLU is an excellent idea that can only benefit both organizations. There are multiple cases of real multilevel exchanges between local universities and colleges. For example all the schools in Amherst, MA (U. Mass, Amherst, Mt. Holyoke, Smith and Hampshire College) are organized as a consortium which not only collaborates openly in research, library resources, and community efforts, but also allow students enrolled in any of the member institutions to take classes in any of the other schools. This is great for students interested in specific subjects. The students eventually graduate with a diploma from the University / college they enrolled into. I would very much like to see similar collaboration efforts springing in other cities and towns with a significant amount of good Colleges and Universities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, SLU would be wise to embrace its urbanity while incorporating well-planned, active green spaces throughout.  That's one of the things that's always bothered me about the campus - that there's never appeared to be any sort of plan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bonwich said:

I think we have more agreement than argument and most of our disagreement involves semantics. Also, just as point of reference, hsmith, how old are you? I'm 56, so that's what shapes a lot of my perspective.

I'm 31, but I'm used to being more anti-Biondi than most people old enough to remember the pre-Biondi era (even older planning/urban affairs types). One of my favorite professors likes to bemoan the way SLU's urban studies programs played a more important leadership role in the region under Reinert, but even he does not have kind words for the old campus in planning or design terms compared to what we have now. For all of the current campus' faults, it just does not make sense to me to compare it to a campus like Wash U.'s in terms of "urbanity" or community-connectedness. As impressive as the Med Center stuff is, the Danforth campus will never and could never be "urban" in the sense that SLU is, or has the chance to be now that Biondi is gone but his huge land bank remains.

One thing you might be able to shed light on--I've never been clear if the old urban studies program people talk about at SLU was strictly an undergrad or a grad program, and whether it was geared toward true professional planning or more akin to the urban affairs BA that was part of the SLU Public Policy department until recently. A lot of the previously prominent programs around here have fallen by the wayside--most of the older guys I know got their Masters from either SIUE or Southwest MO, neither of which offer them anymore. My sense is that planning as a discipline has declined in the general academic world, and SLU is fortunate to have an MS program standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hsmith19 said:

I'm 31, but I'm used to being more anti-Biondi than most people old enough to remember the pre-Biondi era (even older planning/urban affairs types). One of my favorite professors likes to bemoan the way SLU's urban studies programs played a more important leadership role in the region under Reinert, but even he does not have kind words for the old campus in planning or design terms compared to what we have now. For all of the current campus' faults, it just does not make sense to me to compare it to a campus like Wash U.'s in terms of "urbanity" or community-connectedness. As impressive as the Med Center stuff is, the Danforth campus will never and could never be "urban" in the sense that SLU is, or has the chance to be now that Biondi is gone but his huge land bank remains.

One thing you might be able to shed light on--I've never been clear if the old urban studies program people talk about at SLU was strictly an undergrad or a grad program, and whether it was geared toward true professional planning or more akin to the urban affairs BA that was part of the SLU Public Policy department until recently. A lot of the previously prominent programs around here have fallen by the wayside--most of the older guys I know got their Masters from either SIUE or Southwest MO, neither of which offer them anymore. My sense is that planning as a discipline has declined in the general academic world, and SLU is fortunate to have an MS program standing.

So I never took any courses in that program, but I did know George Wendel, usually regarded as the patron saint of that era, pretty well. I really can't remember if there was a master's within the program or not (although I know someone I can ask). Here's some stuff I dug up about the program based on looking for stuff about him.

(T)he Center for Urban Programs at the University (was started in 1968)....In 1990 the Center's academic degree programs were combined with other public policy degree programs into a new Department of Public Policy Studies.

Regarding the old campus's planning and design, I don't think you can directly compare then and now, any more than you can compare, for example, Busch Stadiums I, II and III. Each had good and bad points for its era but had entirely different standards for "good" and "bad."

For example, I bet you can go back and find plenty of praise for the initial design of Frost campus and how "transformative" it was, similar to all the praise given to the Biondized campus. From then until the Biondi era, though, planning and design was a combination of "use it until it falls down" (because the U. didn't believe in proper maintenance budgeting) and "incorporate the ugliest, most derivative architecture you can conceive" (the initial Frost Campus, and then some of the additions such as Tegeler). Nice buildings like DeSmet Hall and beautiful buildings like Sodality House basically crumbled under their own weight (Cupples was the major exception to this rule). The concept of a master plan was probably not even considered, and in any event was made difficult by all the non-University buildings within what was considered the "campus." 

And we'll have to agree to disagree on WashU, or at least to clarify some semantics. The WashU Danforth campus proper, aside from its connection to one of the great urban public parks in America, is not urban. But "community-connectedness" itself isn't just physical. WashU truly connected itself to its community by playing an integral planning and financial role in transforming a rapidly blighting area near its campus into something that's considered an urban showcase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 28, 2016 at 2:09 PM, hsmith19 said:

The campus today would also be more urban and more cool had Mill Creek Valley never been wiped out long before Biondi got his mitts on the area.

h s batman people on here know stuff!? might ruin the whole MBM experience for me :)

 it is amazing how the whole center of town, cortex whatever has slowly but surely developed. The one that 10 years ago people were saying it would happen and have been right beyond my wildest dreams is The Grove. 25 years ago one may of been locked up for predicting such. on the MCV thing are you saying it would of been better than and now to have not torn it down? I think those units weren't built to last this long! Anyone else by booze underage in that little liquor store that was in the bottom of that mini high rise? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, willie said:

If Mill Creek Valley had not been wiped out where would the arena and the east campus be? Laclede Town had become crime invested. I'll take the land.

 

I took several undergrad UA courses back in the early 70's. It had a reputation as being one the best programs in the nation. I recall Lou Cervantes was one of my profs. Remember seeing him in City Hall, talking to him about a paper I was writing. Very helpful and genuine nice guy.

Mill Creek Valley was before my time and I was told it was one big slum. I lived in Laclede Town for 2 years (74-5) and I liked it a lot. If they had crime I did not know about it and I still recall how nice my neighbors were. I will admit the buildings SLU constructed on the site of Mill Creek Valley are just plain ugly. I am sure the designers could made something to at least resemble DuBourg and DeSmet. That was way before Bondi's time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, bonwich said:

So I never took any courses in that program, but I did know George Wendel, usually regarded as the patron saint of that era, pretty well. I really can't remember if there was a master's within the program or not (although I know someone I can ask). Here's some stuff I dug up about the program based on looking for stuff about him.

(T)he Center for Urban Programs at the University (was started in 1968)....In 1990 the Center's academic degree programs were combined with other public policy degree programs into a new Department of Public Policy Studies.

Thanks for the info here--it's something I've always been curious about. I have a bunch of friends who got bachelors in urban affairs when it was part of Public Policy, but I don't think that degree program really exists anymore. The current Planning masters program got shunted around to different departments in recent years, but I think it made sense to throw in with the Sustainability stuff, especially considering the big grant from Alberici.

16 hours ago, tarheelbilliken said:

Mill Creek Valley was before my time and I was told it was one big slum. I lived in Laclede Town for 2 years (74-5) and I liked it a lot. If they had crime I did not know about it and I still recall how nice my neighbors were. I will admit the buildings SLU constructed on the site of Mill Creek Valley are just plain ugly. I am sure the designers could made something to at least resemble DuBourg and DeSmet. That was way before Bondi's time. 

It's obviously before my time too, but it's my understanding most of the buildings themselves were solid brick masonry, stuff that could have stuck around forever if someone wanted it to and might even have been attractive rehabs if they were still around today. The problem was that they lagged behind the rest of the City in terms of updates like indoor plumbing and infrastructure stuff. Rather than bring it up to date, everyone from the Mayor to the NAACP just wanted to bulldoze it all and start over. It sounds like a lot of the people who were displaced from MCV ended up in Pruitt-Igoe (I know a couple of grandkids of people who lived both places), which obviously didn't end up being much of a step up long-term.

Attitudes on "slums" have changed a lot since then. In hindsight, MCV looks like a preferable slum to either Pruitt-Igoe or the Hiroshima Flats wasteland that replaced it in Midtown until SLU started expanding. Probably also preferable to the concentrated poverty isolated in out of the way corners today like Spanish Lake. At least MCV was a real neighborhood with shops, businesses, and some jobs. And I tend to think the current SLU campus would be much more interesting if something of the old MCV neighborhood remained, instead of just being removed in one fell swoop. That's how areas like the Grove and even the area just beyond Lafayette Square and the old City Hospital have been reborn. Any neighborhood in the central corridor that hangs on a little bit at least presents opportunity. How much cooler would Chaifetz be if it was surrounded by parts of an actual historic neighborhood (yeah, I know that means you'd probably have to walk 16 blocks instead of 6 for parking)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to decry the complete demolition of MCV and the historic architecture that was lost, but it's hard to know if that area would have ended up becoming another Soulard/Lafayette Square or not.  The central location would suggest that gentrification might have eventually occurred, but that hasn't been true for much of the areas immediately surrounding DT and Midtown. Similar vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of uses are now almost entirely gone with few remaining buildings, and most of which are in poor condition.

The frustrating part with SLU is that while planning theory and land use strategies changed considerably since the 1960s and 1970s, the school's approach did not. Large-scale demolition and renewal-style planning continued to be a favored tool and the surrounding neighborhoods did not benefit from the school's growth. The SLU med campus is the best example of that.  I'm hopeful that they've changed their approach and initial plans for the med school suggest that's the case.

I think it's also hard to ignore the parallels between SLU and Wash U.  While the neighborhoods surrounding the campuses are clearly very different, Wash U has focused their redevelopment efforts in areas that many would have considered "unsafe" 20 years ago (some may still consider it "unsafe", see the Mary Queen of Peace v. Our Lady of Lourdes debate). The school's efforts greatly helped to stabilize those neighborhoods and now the school is actively developing property in the Loop. In their minds, a vibrant and safe Loop is a huge recruiting tool for them.  I think SLU should take a similar approach with Grand Center.  For example, they currently sit on two corner lots at the intersection of Grand and Lindell.  Activating those lots with new mixed-use projects (student housing above first floor retail) would be a great start. Instead, we have dog parks and fountains, which would be fine if these were not key opportunity sites.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SShoe said:

I used to decry the complete demolition of MCV and the historic architecture that was lost, but it's hard to know if that area would have ended up becoming another Soulard/Lafayette Square or not.  The central location would suggest that gentrification might have eventually occurred, but that hasn't been true for much of the areas immediately surrounding DT and Midtown. Similar vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of uses are now almost entirely gone with few remaining buildings, and most of which are in poor condition.

The frustrating part with SLU is that while planning theory and land use strategies changed considerably since the 1960s and 1970s, the school's approach did not. Large-scale demolition and renewal-style planning continued to be a favored tool and the surrounding neighborhoods did not benefit from the school's growth. The SLU med campus is the best example of that.  I'm hopeful that they've changed their approach and initial plans for the med school suggest that's the case.

I think it's also hard to ignore the parallels between SLU and Wash U.  While the neighborhoods surrounding the campuses are clearly very different, Wash U has focused their redevelopment efforts in areas that many would have considered "unsafe" 20 years ago (some may still consider it "unsafe", see the Mary Queen of Peace v. Our Lady of Lourdes debate). The school's efforts greatly helped to stabilize those neighborhoods and now the school is actively developing property in the Loop. In their minds, a vibrant and safe Loop is a huge recruiting tool for them.  I think SLU should take a similar approach with Grand Center.  For example, they currently sit on two corner lots at the intersection of Grand and Lindell.  Activating those lots with new mixed-use projects (student housing above first floor retail) would be a great start. Instead, we have dog parks and fountains, which would be fine if these were not key opportunity sites.  

 

I believe the MCV area would've been successfully redeveloped had it not been demolished - the location is outstanding, and the fact that it was south of Delmar is a huge factor.

And those lots at the corner of Grand and Lindell are huge wasted opportunities.  The southeast corner deserves some sort of signature academic building, while the northeast corner is just begging for a mixed-use project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SShoe said:

I used to decry the complete demolition of MCV and the historic architecture that was lost, but it's hard to know if that area would have ended up becoming another Soulard/Lafayette Square or not.  The central location would suggest that gentrification might have eventually occurred, but that hasn't been true for much of the areas immediately surrounding DT and Midtown. Similar vibrant neighborhoods with a mix of uses are now almost entirely gone with few remaining buildings, and most of which are in poor condition.

The frustrating part with SLU is that while planning theory and land use strategies changed considerably since the 1960s and 1970s, the school's approach did not. Large-scale demolition and renewal-style planning continued to be a favored tool and the surrounding neighborhoods did not benefit from the school's growth. The SLU med campus is the best example of that.  I'm hopeful that they've changed their approach and initial plans for the med school suggest that's the case.

I think it's also hard to ignore the parallels between SLU and Wash U.  While the neighborhoods surrounding the campuses are clearly very different, Wash U has focused their redevelopment efforts in areas that many would have considered "unsafe" 20 years ago (some may still consider it "unsafe", see the Mary Queen of Peace v. Our Lady of Lourdes debate). The school's efforts greatly helped to stabilize those neighborhoods and now the school is actively developing property in the Loop. In their minds, a vibrant and safe Loop is a huge recruiting tool for them.  I think SLU should take a similar approach with Grand Center.  For example, they currently sit on two corner lots at the intersection of Grand and Lindell.  Activating those lots with new mixed-use projects (student housing above first floor retail) would be a great start. Instead, we have dog parks and fountains, which would be fine if these were not key opportunity sites.  

MCV wouldn't have needed to be another Soulard to be an improvement over the latter day "slums" that replaced it, although architecturally and locationally it was probably more similar to Soulard than a lot of people realize. I think in hindsight clearing it probably makes even less sense than the large scale clearance downtown, which gets decried a lot today.

As for Biondi, I don't think he was really trying to engage in mid-century urban renewal. He was behaving like a typical for-profit developer. The wide scale bulldozing is a common thread, but he was never even attempting renewal, which is probably the root of the problem. He was just banking land. To his credit, he at least did more with it than some others I could name.

And yet again, my purpose isn't to defend Biondi's planning efforts (or lack thereof) or run down what Wash U. has done. My point is that SLU is still an urban campus, and a pretty impressive one, in spite of Biondi's weaknesses. And for all of Wash U.'s successes, its location will never present the same opportunities or challenges. There are more analogous models for SLU to look at in other cities if the goal is to improve after Biondi. We'll never be Wash U., or vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Box and Won said:

And those lots at the corner of Grand and Lindell are huge wasted opportunities.  The southeast corner deserves some sort of signature academic building, while the northeast corner is just begging for a mixed-use project.

If the building downtown hadn't fallen into SLU's lap, the southeast corner would have been a good spot for a new law school. Or if the law school stayed where it was, the corner by Grand Center would have made sense for the literature and cultural classrooms they ended up moving to Morrissey Hall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, hsmith19 said:

If the building downtown hadn't fallen into SLU's lap, the southeast corner would have been a good spot for a new law school. Or if the law school stayed where it was, the corner by Grand Center would have made sense for the literature and cultural classrooms they ended up moving to Morrissey Hall.

How is the new law school doing? That struck me as an odd decision, but I guess that was par for the course with Biondi late in his reign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no training in urban development at all but I have observed that in many cases the development of a derelict area has come from grass roots origins, people willing to move in and improve things. Eventually little shops and places to eat open, and the area slowly blooms. I think this comes slowly at first with some real "pioneers" moving into bombed out areas and deciding they like what they see, whatever it is that they see. We know a couple that bought a house right out of college with holes in the roof, and floors in Lafayette Sq when it was a bombed out derelict area, moved into it and remodeled it slowly. They watched their house change and the neighborhood bloom. They still live there and are now old as I am. The same goes for the Grove, the Flora area near the Botanical Gardens, Benton Park, and the ritzy areas north of Forest Park. I know a lady (her long time husband died some time ago) who bought an 11 room house with slate roofs and a carriage house just north of Westmoreland Place and Forest Park. It was in a terrible state of disrepair when they bought it for $11,000 a very long time ago. This was a gated street and the families that eventually moved in developed very close ties among themselves, some kind of reverse ghetto type of thing. They eventually sold it for over a million and moved to a condo. You need to have vision, but you need to have the right temperament to do this, and oftentimes (depending on the condition of the house and the owner's finances) be willing to go back home after work to do a second work shift in a house with leaks, holes in walls and roofs, terrible heating and plumbing and, never to be forgotten, unsafe neighborhoods until the area blooms. Finally, while you are doing all of this, you need to have enough strength to calm mother and tell her you are not going to die because you live in such a place. It can eventually be a very rewarding experience in many ways.

For those of you with an interest in the subject, in the 1930's the fabulous Georgetown area in DC was a bombed out slum full of derelicts, and the same can be said for Old Town Alexandria across the river in Virginia, who was a dilapidated drug addict den in the 1960s and 1970s. Just look at them now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2016 at 3:51 PM, Old guy said:

I have no training in urban development at all but I have observed that in many cases the development of a derelict area has come from grass roots origins, people willing to move in and improve things. Eventually little shops and places to eat open, and the area slowly blooms. I think this comes slowly at first with some real "pioneers" moving into bombed out areas and deciding they like what they see, whatever it is that they see. We know a couple that bought a house right out of college with holes in the roof, and floors in Lafayette Sq when it was a bombed out derelict area, moved into it and remodeled it slowly. They watched their house change and the neighborhood bloom. They still live there and are now old as I am. The same goes for the Grove, the Flora area near the Botanical Gardens, Benton Park, and the ritzy areas north of Forest Park. I know a lady (her long time husband died some time ago) who bought an 11 room house with slate roofs and a carriage house just north of Westmoreland Place and Forest Park. It was in a terrible state of disrepair when they bought it for $11,000 a very long time ago. This was a gated street and the families that eventually moved in developed very close ties among themselves, some kind of reverse ghetto type of thing. They eventually sold it for over a million and moved to a condo. You need to have vision, but you need to have the right temperament to do this, and oftentimes (depending on the condition of the house and the owner's finances) be willing to go back home after work to do a second work shift in a house with leaks, holes in walls and roofs, terrible heating and plumbing and, never to be forgotten, unsafe neighborhoods until the area blooms. Finally, while you are doing all of this, you need to have enough strength to calm mother and tell her you are not going to die because you live in such a place. It can eventually be a very rewarding experience in many ways.

For those of you with an interest in the subject, in the 1930's the fabulous Georgetown area in DC was a bombed out slum full of derelicts, and the same can be said for Old Town Alexandria across the river in Virginia, who was a dilapidated drug addict den in the 1960s and 1970s. Just look at them now. 

Very true. I've tried to do something similar with a couple rehabs in Carondelet in deep South City (one is a former LRA property I still live in). I've been there seven years and there has been some improvement in that time, but also some people who have "given up" and moved on. But I like the architecture and the street grid well enough to put up with the derelict buildings, hookers, and drug deals even if the neighborhood never turns into another Soulard or even Cherokee. My wife and I have had ceilings collapse from leaky flat roofs and tried to cool and heat rooms where modern ductwork really isn't feasible, so your stories are familiar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hsmith19, not only are you a trained Urban development professional, but you are also a "pioneer" in the trenches of area development. I am always impressed by people who live the way they talk. Thank you for sharing your experiences in the world of neighborhood renewal. I hope your house has high lofted ceilings, like a lot of the old properties had, that will allow you some day to install a false ceiling of some sort with modern ductwork and improved living comfort. All the best with your rehab project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...