It almost looks like a few dudes with crowbars could pop that shell off in an afternoon. The building certainly looks a little rough inside and out, but is it structurally sound? Has the stucco been holding the whole thing together?
- 1,320
According to a 2003 Business Journal article, David Slay gutted the first floor and completed new masonry work there that year in anticipation of a new pub he planned to open. Building permits suggest that some new electric and plumbing were roughed in but never completed. I suspect this means the building is structurally sound. At the same time -- although 'structural issues' play in the press -- they are sometimes the cheapest to fix.
http://m.bizjournals.com/stlouis/storie ... all&r=full
I suspect markinlondon's photo is pretty much the way it was left in 2003. That even looks like construction debris on the floor from a messy contractor:
![]()
http://m.bizjournals.com/stlouis/storie ... all&r=full
I suspect markinlondon's photo is pretty much the way it was left in 2003. That even looks like construction debris on the floor from a messy contractor:
I appreciate the long and rich history of this building, but I think the consideration of demolition should also turn on what they have planned for the site. If it's a surface lot, a plaza for the planned apartment building, or no plan at all, then it's completely unjustifiable.
Also, is the building next door (assumedly 921 Locust) also planned for demolition? It looks great (unlike the Tudor) and is reminiscent of the Bride House, which is getting redone just a couple blocks away.
Also, is the building next door (assumedly 921 Locust) also planned for demolition? It looks great (unlike the Tudor) and is reminiscent of the Bride House, which is getting redone just a couple blocks away.
- 1,320
More history. The Noonan-Kocian Gallery was also the first exhibition outside of Paris of Claude Monet's 1906 Water Lillies. Next time you're at the Chicago Art Institute, you might mention that we had it first.
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/16568
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/16568
Actually, I've framed a few paintings of (still-living) white men that are hanging on the campus right now...I wonder if someone a hundred years from now will come across my name in the records and post it in some yet-unimagined form of social media.Presbyterian wrote:^You know, there are a ton of Wash U records from a hundred years ago that list this compamy as a "framer" they used to fit all those paintings of dead white men that hang all over their campus...
Back in 2008 when the Roberts Brothers first proposed demolition of 921 and 923 Locust St for a new entrance to Hotel Indigo, Landmarks Association of St Louis released a statement urging preservation of 921, but stated:
-RBB
is the building structurally unsound?We concur with Karen Baxter's assessment of the stucco-and-timber- covered corner building at 923 Locust. Although we cannot truly evaluate its significance in its current state, we concede that it is ineligible for National Register listing at present due to integrity issues.
-RBB
- 278
This is off the top of my head, but under NRHP Criteria C, this building is a hard sell for eligibility given the cladding and its general ambiguity as to period of significance.
But I think that certainly its association with the local art scene, and its potential significance in the national art scene is worth pursuing under Criteria A, which states that the property "must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history." Therefore, it must have an association with an event, or at the least, a trend. That's a valid argument, in my opinion.
But I think that certainly its association with the local art scene, and its potential significance in the national art scene is worth pursuing under Criteria A, which states that the property "must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history." Therefore, it must have an association with an event, or at the least, a trend. That's a valid argument, in my opinion.
Also, if a good case can be made for 921 and it can be preserved, that may defeat the purpose of demolishing 923.
- 11K
In this case, the "integrity issues" are a reference to the Tudor cladding as it obscures the building's age and original style.rbb wrote:Back in 2008 when the Roberts Brothers first proposed demolition of 921 and 923 Locust St for a new entrance to Hotel Indigo, Landmarks Association of St Louis released a statement urging preservation of 921, but stated:
is the building structurally unsound?We concur with Karen Baxter's assessment of the stucco-and-timber- covered corner building at 923 Locust. Although we cannot truly evaluate its significance in its current state, we concede that it is ineligible for National Register listing at present due to integrity issues.
-RBB
This detail from markinlondon's photo leaves me optimistic that a good portion of the Noonan Kocian Art Co. storefront remains underneath a fairly flimsy looking layer of cementboard. I see what appear to be very old and intact wood and cast iron.
![]()
I'm wondering how certain we are that the tudor cladding dates to the 1940s? I ask for two reasons:
1) Tudor revival was all the rage in the 1960s--think renaissance fairs, the Cheshire, suits of armour, Camelot, hair braids and buxom serving winches hackling as they overfill thy cup. Faux tudor would have been unusual in the 1940s.
2) Also, Noonan Kocian seems to have closed sometime in the late 1950s or 1960s. I can't see a respected art dealer going faux tudor. (I've found some of Noonan Kocian's records were donated to the Smithsonian in 1968.) The late 1960s was when the Fatted Calf moved in. Unless someone with local knowledge can tell me otherwise, I would suspect the Fatted Calf was responsible for the tudor renovation.
I could be wrong. But if anyone has photos from 1946-66, that would help.
I'm wondering how certain we are that the tudor cladding dates to the 1940s? I ask for two reasons:
1) Tudor revival was all the rage in the 1960s--think renaissance fairs, the Cheshire, suits of armour, Camelot, hair braids and buxom serving winches hackling as they overfill thy cup. Faux tudor would have been unusual in the 1940s.
2) Also, Noonan Kocian seems to have closed sometime in the late 1950s or 1960s. I can't see a respected art dealer going faux tudor. (I've found some of Noonan Kocian's records were donated to the Smithsonian in 1968.) The late 1960s was when the Fatted Calf moved in. Unless someone with local knowledge can tell me otherwise, I would suspect the Fatted Calf was responsible for the tudor renovation.
I could be wrong. But if anyone has photos from 1946-66, that would help.
Ah, sure. Thanks. As others have said, that seems like a relatively easy fix.Alex Ihnen wrote:In this case, the "integrity issues" are a reference to the Tudor cladding as it obscures the building's age and original style.rbb wrote:Back in 2008 when the Roberts Brothers first proposed demolition of 921 and 923 Locust St for a new entrance to Hotel Indigo, Landmarks Association of St Louis released a statement urging preservation of 921, but stated:
is the building structurally unsound?We concur with Karen Baxter's assessment of the stucco-and-timber- covered corner building at 923 Locust. Although we cannot truly evaluate its significance in its current state, we concede that it is ineligible for National Register listing at present due to integrity issues.
-RBB
-RBB
Great article posted today Presbyterian! Thank you!
My girlfriend and I have always been attracted to this specific building and have joked about trying to purchase it to open a pub of some sort. Now that I know the history of the building, however, that seems to be a juvenile use of the space. I think now I would prefer to see the original exterior restored and a local art gallery (potentially with cafe or coffee shop or wine bar) created on the ground floor. Maybe convert the top two floors to lofts/work space and have local, live-in artists rotate through.
As I know very little about real-estate and local politics, does anyone think the building would be put up for sale if the demolition permit is denied?
My girlfriend and I have always been attracted to this specific building and have joked about trying to purchase it to open a pub of some sort. Now that I know the history of the building, however, that seems to be a juvenile use of the space. I think now I would prefer to see the original exterior restored and a local art gallery (potentially with cafe or coffee shop or wine bar) created on the ground floor. Maybe convert the top two floors to lofts/work space and have local, live-in artists rotate through.
As I know very little about real-estate and local politics, does anyone think the building would be put up for sale if the demolition permit is denied?
- 1,320
City HUDZ panel votes to approve blighting and redevelopment plan to demolish 923 Locust (Noonan Kocian Art Company) for an auto drop-off area:
http://stlouiscore.com/blog/2013/06/12/ ... committee/#
History here:
"...Walls that now held up menus decades earlier had held up Monet and Berninghaus, Cezanne and Seurat, Segonzac, Rembrandt and Derain..."
http://nextstl.com/preservation/when-th ... nth-locust
![]()
http://stlouiscore.com/blog/2013/06/12/ ... committee/#
History here:
"...Walls that now held up menus decades earlier had held up Monet and Berninghaus, Cezanne and Seurat, Segonzac, Rembrandt and Derain..."
http://nextstl.com/preservation/when-th ... nth-locust
- 8,155
boutique hotel per the article. Sounds like a revised submission from the one earlier from Roberts Bros. with revised streetscaping requirements, etc. I'm not an expert on the marktet, but does downtown really need another hotel at this point?downtown2007 wrote:An auto drop off area for what?
- 124
I thought the plan was to redevelop 921 Locust also (the 4 story building)... the link says to demolish that also, as in the initial Roberts Brothers plan. That seems like a large gap to leave at the corner if both buildings were to go.
Doubt it at "this point". But next year or the year after, who knows.roger wyoming II wrote:boutique hotel per the article. Sounds like a revised submission from the one earlier from Roberts Bros. with revised streetscaping requirements, etc. I'm not an expert on the marktet, but does downtown really need another hotel at this point?
How is a sidewalk not an auto drop-off area? Lots of hotels take over a portion of the sidewalk/parking in front of their entrances for valet and pick-up/drop-off, and it seems to work fine.
Tearing down a building for a driveway runs counter to everything that downtown needs to be doing.
Tearing down a building for a driveway runs counter to everything that downtown needs to be doing.
- 5,433
No kidding. Just for one example, the Embassy Suites manages just fine with a drop-off area by the sidewalk on Seventh Street. Amazingly, they manage to accommodate their guests while keeping The Laurel fully intact! Wow!wabash wrote:How is a sidewalk not an auto drop-off area? Lots of hotels take over a portion of the sidewalk/parking in front of their entrances for valet and pick-up/drop-off, and it seems to work fine.
Tearing down a building for a driveway runs counter to everything that downtown needs to be doing.
What really irks me is that this is one of not too many corners in downtown on which there are buildings at every corner. So, what the hell, what's one more screwed-up corner, right?
- 10K
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
I swear, it's just one battle after another in this city.
I swear, it's just one battle after another in this city.
This combined with the Cupples 7 coming down sure does put a damper on the Arcade and Alexa announcements.
STOP building a downtown suited for cars!
STOP building a downtown suited for cars!