AB appears to be demolishing at least one of their chimneys. The northernmost example is about half down at this point. It has scaffolding about the "top." (Which would have been the midsection last I looked at it closely.) Might be they're using a steeple-jack, though I'd be surprised if that would be legal here any longer. Still, it would be quiet. Anyone heard a peep about this? It quite surprised me to see two and a half chimneys and not three. And those have to be the most ornate and lovely chimneys left in town. And surely that complex is on the national register, so surely they would need a permit to do anything at all.
- 991
The brewery itself is not in any historic district. Both the Soulard local and national historic districts stop at Lynch street and then the local Soulard historic district has a small pocket south of Wyoming. As for individual buildings being on the register, three are Landmarks, (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... omplex.cfm) but I can't confirm that the smoke stacks are. So they very well might have been able to demo without any historic review for a permit.
- 6,157
Yes, the northernmost one, which is nearest the camera, was half gone as of yesterday afternoon. It appears as thought that one is later than the other two. I was looking for some kind of reporting about it and found many old engravings showing only two. Which might be why the other two are surrounded with so many hoops, but the nearest one is (was) still comparatively unadorned.moorlander wrote:One of these?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That said, the simple fact that it's an addition isn't necessarily excuse to knock it down in my book. It's still a quit historic addition, and a quite lovely one. Nobody will be building chimneys like that again, I expect.
Well, dang nab it, it darned well should be. That site should be on the national historic register all by its lonesome entirely on its own merits. I never would have guessed any part of the historic complex would face any real threat. Danged Belgians. X(Laife Fulk wrote:The brewery itself is not in any historic district. Both the Soulard local and national historic districts stop at Lynch street and then the local Soulard historic district has a small pocket south of Wyoming. As for individual buildings being on the register, three are Landmarks, (https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... omplex.cfm) but I can't confirm that the smoke stacks are. So they very well might have been able to demo without any historic review for a permit.
^Do we have any recourse to prevent the demolition of the other two? Are there demo permits for any or all of these? Not quite sure how to research that.
Part of me wonders if they're taking it down to rebuild it. Like there were many structural issues that needed to be addressed
On Google Maps the image shows the northern one covered. Is that a clue?
- 6,157
^quincunx,
Probably. I was looking at that the other day and wondering, but forgot to turn off the 3D buildings. It's much more clear int he regular satelite view, naturally. The other two might well still be in use, at least to produce steam or something like that. The southernmost one appears to be lined with a different material, which is probably a sign of more recent maintenance. (Even if the northernmost one does seem to be the newest.) I'll take it as a slightly hopeful sign that they won't do in the other two just yet. But I still think it would be wise to figure out how to get some legal protection for that plant. The whole thing is a gem and I don't trust InBev to give two hoots about St. Louis history.
^^chriss752,
I can't imagine they'd tear it half down only to rebuild it, brick by brick. If there were structural issues they were interested in addressing they'd have tuckpointed it. But the only scaffolding is a single band right around the top . . . er, middle. (The former middle, anyway. Top now.) That's pretty well the way it would look if a steeplejack was toppling the thing, one course at a time, into itself and using the chimney as its own debris chute. It's an old way of doing things. A bit labor intensive. But it works all right. (Basically a fancy and official version of what you saw your friend doing further north on Broadway.) And in the middle of a tight plant where they probably don't want debris everywhere maybe that's still the right way to do it.
I can believe there were structural issues. I can't believe they'll put it back once half gone.
Probably. I was looking at that the other day and wondering, but forgot to turn off the 3D buildings. It's much more clear int he regular satelite view, naturally. The other two might well still be in use, at least to produce steam or something like that. The southernmost one appears to be lined with a different material, which is probably a sign of more recent maintenance. (Even if the northernmost one does seem to be the newest.) I'll take it as a slightly hopeful sign that they won't do in the other two just yet. But I still think it would be wise to figure out how to get some legal protection for that plant. The whole thing is a gem and I don't trust InBev to give two hoots about St. Louis history.
^^chriss752,
I can't imagine they'd tear it half down only to rebuild it, brick by brick. If there were structural issues they were interested in addressing they'd have tuckpointed it. But the only scaffolding is a single band right around the top . . . er, middle. (The former middle, anyway. Top now.) That's pretty well the way it would look if a steeplejack was toppling the thing, one course at a time, into itself and using the chimney as its own debris chute. It's an old way of doing things. A bit labor intensive. But it works all right. (Basically a fancy and official version of what you saw your friend doing further north on Broadway.) And in the middle of a tight plant where they probably don't want debris everywhere maybe that's still the right way to do it.
I can believe there were structural issues. I can't believe they'll put it back once half gone.