Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study finds Webster Groves demolitions replacing smaller, lower‑priced homes with larger, higher‑priced houses
Summary
A city-funded analysis of home demolitions from 2004–2024 shows demolished houses were typically smaller and less expensive than the homes built in their place; new builds are larger and sold for multiples of the prior values, raising concerns about loss of lower‑priced housing stock.
Sam Dobson, an intern with the Webster Groves planning department and a master’s student at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, presented a data review of 278 residential demolitions in Webster Groves between 2004 and 2024 and outlined differences between demolished homes and the new construction that followed.
Dobson’s analysis found an average of about 14 demolitions per year over the two decades and about 17 demolitions per year in the most recent decade. In many cases the demolished houses were replaced by larger homes: on average the new construction was roughly 2.5 times the square footage of the demolished structure, and sale prices for replacement homes were often four to five times higher than the properties they replaced. Dobson said that in 2022 the average sale price for replacement houses topped $1 million while the demolished houses averaged about $187,000.
The study mapped demolitions across the city and showed concentrations in north‑central and northwestern neighborhoods. Dobson noted some clusters are near Deer Creek, a flood‑prone area where redevelopment can be limited. He reported that about 21.5% of demolitions were not followed by new single‑family construction; of those, 33 properties remained vacant, six were consolidated with neighboring lots, and 17 were converted to commercial uses, including some by Webster University and senior living projects.
Dobson emphasized that demolition is sometimes necessary but urged mindful approaches that preserve community character and the city’s smaller, more affordable housing stock. He suggested several policy options for council consideration: a demolition permit fee (with proceeds dedicated to a home maintenance or rehabilitation fund), programs or incentives for deconstruction and material recycling, and incentives for new smaller or more affordable housing types such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes/triplexes, or a “dollar home” program used in other jurisdictions.
Council members asked follow‑up questions about whether demolitions were developer‑driven or owner‑occupied rebuilds; Dobson said he had anecdotal evidence both ways but had not yet compiled a definitive breakdown. He also described examples from other cities — including pilot programs in the City of St. Louis and a Chicago points program for sustainability measures — as potential models.
Dobson said he will provide a written report to the council and planning commission; councilmembers asked that the complete report and appendices be made available to the public.
Ending
The council asked staff to add Dobson’s report to the planning commission and public files; Dobson said he will share his write‑up and that the planning department may post it on the city website.
