Two Brentwood homes to be razed for new ones

By
Doug Miner
-
11
66

The Brentwood Architectural Review Board is set to discuss plans to demolish two homes to be replaced with new ones.

On the board’s agenda are items to demolish 8830 Madge Avenue and 9119 Lawn Avenue. The board was scheduled to meet on March 17, but was rescheduled to March 24.

Also on the agenda:

  • 300 square foot addition to the rear of 38 Whitehall Court
  • New front porch at 8934 Lawn Avenue
  • Second story addition and a car port at 9380 White Avenue
  • Second story addition to the rear of 2027 Woodsy Drive
9119 Lawn Avenue
9119 Lawn Avenue

 

8830 Madge Avenue
8830 Madge Avenue

11 COMMENTS

    • The houses look nice but the people who buy them don’t usually send their kids to public school. Our schools could use the kids.

      • I think many of the folks in nicer houses happily send their kids to Brentwood schools. But they are still sending their tax dollars to the school… more tax dollars than the avearge person… and still without using any of the resources the money goes toward. Seems like a net gain to me either way.

  2. The fact that people are wanting to build and pay for these homes in Brentwood is a good thing. Bigger houses bring more taxes, bigger families, higher property values. The two houses pictured in this article are old and worn out. The comment about people not maintaining their property because it is just going to be torn down to make way for a bigger house is garbage. If you maintain your home and increase the value, the developer has to give you what it’s worth. If you let it deteriorate they get it cheaper, why would you do that with one of your biggest investments.

    • Actually I know of some people in some neighborhoods who say there is no point in fixing or upgrading their homes because they will be torn down, but those are in the Ladue School District. The father of one of my students said he is renovating his house but the neighbors say there is no point in doing that because their houses will be torn down when they change hands.

  3. Not an upgrade, just big vulgar buildings for developers to make money on while destroying the character of our neighborhood. The unintended consequence is people on older homes defer maintenance knowing they will be the next in line to be torn down. Bigger isn’t always better in my opinion.

    • Another unintended consequence is people moving into a $500k house in the middle of an old neighborhood with small old houses think that every house in the neighborhood should be immaculate like their brand new house.

      • Hey Don, i agree. the half million dollar home owners can pay the other residents to make all the right improvements, or just keep the money. Otherwise, best not to complain about all the residents when the buyer is fully aware of the houses as they stand.

    • Will B. YOU NAILED IT… the massive infusion of greed and “hit and run” property turn-overs is not who we are. The building code needs to include and enforce a consistency of any new developments that are not outrageously out of line. City Hall needs to get involved in keeping residents from persistent architectural disruptions. SO WHERE IS CITY HALL in all of this?

  4. Thank you whoever entered this information onto this site. I am thinking these decisions are ok’d by the residents–and consistent with an upgrade in architecture by remaining neighbors. Are the rocks outside 8830 free to pick up? love, maureen

Comments are closed.