Good. Great. The most dangerous thing is to have the buildings bank-owned. There's one more to go and it's going to be a challenge - the roof has collapsed, etc.
- 3,235
Maybe this will work out for Koman and they will become more involved with development in the city.
- 2,005
The City has shut down Spruce and 11th Streets by the Cupples 7 building for fear it may collapse soon.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... ndmark.php
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... ndmark.php
- 11K
It's going to be very sad when we lose this building due to simple neglect.
- 1,364
I'm glad the other buildings have been renovated, but it's still a shame to lose this one.
To be fair, I don't blame the developers as much on this one as I would blame some derelict developer who lets his properties rot. The developers have done a lot of good for this city, even if this one was neglected.
But it's still a shame to lose any building. But I'm glad McGowan Walsh (though they split up, so I'm not sure who owns Couples now) came along, otherwise we might in this situation with more than one Cupples building.
Doing some research online it sounds like McGowan and Walsh have had some issues the past few years, so maybe it's not a big surprise they didn't get this building renovated, since the roof was collapsing anyway. It may have been their most expensive property to renovate, if it could be by this point. I'd imagine that roof damage didn't happen overnight, and it may have been there when they bought the building.
On Google Earth it looks like this building had a smaller hole on the roof in 2002. The 1998 satellite image is too blurry to tell if it had one then, but there was definitely noticeable roof damage by 2002.
To be fair, I don't blame the developers as much on this one as I would blame some derelict developer who lets his properties rot. The developers have done a lot of good for this city, even if this one was neglected.
But it's still a shame to lose any building. But I'm glad McGowan Walsh (though they split up, so I'm not sure who owns Couples now) came along, otherwise we might in this situation with more than one Cupples building.
Doing some research online it sounds like McGowan and Walsh have had some issues the past few years, so maybe it's not a big surprise they didn't get this building renovated, since the roof was collapsing anyway. It may have been their most expensive property to renovate, if it could be by this point. I'd imagine that roof damage didn't happen overnight, and it may have been there when they bought the building.
On Google Earth it looks like this building had a smaller hole on the roof in 2002. The 1998 satellite image is too blurry to tell if it had one then, but there was definitely noticeable roof damage by 2002.
- 3,235
Does Kevin McGowan really not have any money? Didnt he just rehab the Warehouse 13 Lofts?
- 1,364
"The structural condition of this building continues to deteriorate and is of increasing concern," the attorney wrote. The owners had already ignored a lawsuit filed by the city, the letter said.
It gave McGowan and Walsh seven days to call in, or the city would act "to alleviate these immediate safety concerns."
McGowan said he was not surprised. "It's been structurally unsound since before I bought it," he said.
McGowan said he had never torn down a building in his life. But 7 has "no future," he said.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... z1YcsHaL7QThe city said it would bill McGowan and Walsh for the work. The company will have to appeal to the city before demolition.
What a shame. I can't totally blame McGowan and Walsh for this, because it probably was deteriorating before they bought it and it may have nearly been beyond rehabilitation by then. Still, it's a shame.
I wonder what happened to this particular building to cause it to deteriorate faster than the other Cupples buildings that have been renovated? From looking on Google Earth at the 2002 satellite views the only Cupples building that had obvious roof damage was this one, though the roof damage has gotten a lot worse since 2002. I think one building was demolished between 1998-2002.
I think overall the Cupples station's buildings fates have been good, but unfortunately with that many buildings it's not a surprise that some would be lost. Probably some could have been rehabilitated, but this one might have been beyond repair for a while now.
- 10K
That was the McGowan Brothers.downtown2007 wrote:Does Kevin McGowan really not have any money? Didnt he just rehab the Warehouse 13 Lofts?
A question that maybe someone knows, Wasn't BofA going to foreclose on this property and then decided to extend it? My thought is that even the bank doesn't want to touch this property, which can't be good outcome as the city will be put in a position to condemn, demolish and then try to collect on a bill.
Im pretty sure the extension was for #9, not #7.dredger wrote:A question that maybe someone knows, Wasn't BofA going to foreclose on this property and then decided to extend it? My thought is that even the bank doesn't want to touch this property, which can't be good outcome as the city will be put in a position to condemn, demolish and then try to collect on a bill.
- 1,364
I found out why this building has so much more roof damage than the others
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/09/22/ ... -demolish/It suffered major damage when a water tower located on top of the building caused the roof to collapse.
Cupples 7 demo is on the Preservation Board Nov 28 agenda. Is there any hope to save it?
- 11K
Sure. The city has denied and the memo in the Preservation Board agenda states: "we must make all efforts to keep Cupples No. 7 standing until it can be put back into use." That's not exactly the final word, but it's a good start.
So now what?
Preservation Board denies Cupples 7 demolition
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/288304 ... demolition
Preservation Board denies Cupples 7 demolition
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/288304 ... demolition
- 1,864
Great news! This building desperately needs someone to take interest in it.
- 3,762
of course, no mention in the story about how the building can be stabilized for roughly the same price as demolition. i can see the comments now...quincunx wrote:So now what?
Preservation Board denies Cupples 7 demolition
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/288304 ... demolition
- 1,364
I have mixed feelings about this building.
I really want it to be saved, but I don't know if it's financially feasible to save it, especially as tax credits seem to be getting cut. I can see why people would be concerned about the cost of renovation down the road.
At the same time, McGowan & Walsh knew the state that it was in when they bought it and they didn't do anything to help it then. So part of this is their fault. I appreciate their renovations of the other Cupples buildings, but they were still neglectful.
I hope the building can be saved. Either way, McGowan & Walsh shouldn't get off scot free.
I really want it to be saved, but I don't know if it's financially feasible to save it, especially as tax credits seem to be getting cut. I can see why people would be concerned about the cost of renovation down the road.
At the same time, McGowan & Walsh knew the state that it was in when they bought it and they didn't do anything to help it then. So part of this is their fault. I appreciate their renovations of the other Cupples buildings, but they were still neglectful.
I hope the building can be saved. Either way, McGowan & Walsh shouldn't get off scot free.
My understanding is that McGowan & Walsh are no longer parnters and both are essentially broke and bankrupt. Not sure how you can keep either of them from getting off scot free or what do you expect at this point.stlcardsblues1989 wrote:I have mixed feelings about this building.
I hope the building can be saved. Either way, McGowan & Walsh shouldn't get off scot free.
Instead, I believe the bank won't foreclose on the building because they don't want the liability nor pay for demolition is my guess (haven't ever seen a bank come to a resuce of a building on its own dime let alone stabilize a building) and the city trying hard not to spend money. I think they want to demo because it removes the liability and recycling the bricks might cover a big chunk of the cost. Sorry to say it, this becoming a charity case if someone wants to spend money just for the sake of spending money.
- 3,235
The Mcgowans are not broke. If they were then Warehouse 13 would have never of been redone nor would they be doing the Jefferson Arms building. Their company they both owned together went under. It's my understanding that it is only a myth they have no money.
- 8,912
McGowan sure put a lot of money into Blondies and Rosalitas for not having any money. Maybe he's sufficiently leveraged and doesn't want to put forth the cash at this time given the uncertainty in the market place.
McGowan Walsh is now Blue Urban which is run by Kevin McGowan, Kevin broke away from McGowan Brothers development years ago, the two companies are not related in any way. The brothers have been very successful in recent years with Fashion sq. warehouse 13 etc... McGowan Walsh, or Blue Urban was not affiliated with these projects to the best of public knowledge
- 3,235
What was the name of the company affiliated? There has to be another company McGowan runs that is putting money into these recent and future projects.
^Again, different family members with different businesses. See the post above yours.
- 2,929
The story from earlier today, first posted in the BPV thread...
STLToday: Court Wrangling, Tax Issues Stall Hopes to Redevelop Cupples 7
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 0f31a.html
So right now, the City wants the Cupples 7 Building saved (by political leaders and through the Preservation Office), and the Courts have backed this up; the developer wants to throw in the towel after having let, through inaction, the roof to collapse unimpeded and let the resulting inflow of rain & snow rot out the wooden interior; the bank that loaned the money is justifiably concerned on its likelihood of loss from the mortgage; Spruce is still closed off as everyone's worried the walls could collapse (which may happen if nothing is done to support them); and the developer (who owes the City 4 years of back taxes in excess of $250K) anticipates, boldly and grimly, that the building will be a parking lot soon.
It's all back in the courts, and hopefully will be resolved before the building walls collapse from neglect.
Meanwhile, up the block may house an answer of sorts... Cannon Design restored the old Power House Building into its world HQ by fixing up their hollowed-out building's outer walls, installing large windows, and creating a "building within a building" using a cantilevered series of floors. Besides being a successful HQ for this global architecture firm, the building itself has been praised multiple times for its innovative redesign, including being up for the ULI's Global Awards for Excellence this year.
![]()
![]()
![]()
About the building's redevelopment: http://www.cannondesign.com/projects/pr ... renovatio/
About the ULI Award nomination: http://www.cannondesign.com/news/firm-n ... -land-ins/
Would it be possible to incorporate a design like this for Cupples 7?
Instead of trying to rebuild the rotted-out wooden interior and rebrick the holed-in roof, what about building a "building within a building" like the Cannon Design HQ's and converting the roof hole into a glass ceiling, creating an atrium full of natural light?
Just spitballing here. Not sure if it could be practical or cost-effective. But if it could be, this may be an answer...
STLToday: Court Wrangling, Tax Issues Stall Hopes to Redevelop Cupples 7
Source: http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 0f31a.html
So right now, the City wants the Cupples 7 Building saved (by political leaders and through the Preservation Office), and the Courts have backed this up; the developer wants to throw in the towel after having let, through inaction, the roof to collapse unimpeded and let the resulting inflow of rain & snow rot out the wooden interior; the bank that loaned the money is justifiably concerned on its likelihood of loss from the mortgage; Spruce is still closed off as everyone's worried the walls could collapse (which may happen if nothing is done to support them); and the developer (who owes the City 4 years of back taxes in excess of $250K) anticipates, boldly and grimly, that the building will be a parking lot soon.
It's all back in the courts, and hopefully will be resolved before the building walls collapse from neglect.
Meanwhile, up the block may house an answer of sorts... Cannon Design restored the old Power House Building into its world HQ by fixing up their hollowed-out building's outer walls, installing large windows, and creating a "building within a building" using a cantilevered series of floors. Besides being a successful HQ for this global architecture firm, the building itself has been praised multiple times for its innovative redesign, including being up for the ULI's Global Awards for Excellence this year.
About the building's redevelopment: http://www.cannondesign.com/projects/pr ... renovatio/
About the ULI Award nomination: http://www.cannondesign.com/news/firm-n ... -land-ins/
Would it be possible to incorporate a design like this for Cupples 7?
Instead of trying to rebuild the rotted-out wooden interior and rebrick the holed-in roof, what about building a "building within a building" like the Cannon Design HQ's and converting the roof hole into a glass ceiling, creating an atrium full of natural light?
Just spitballing here. Not sure if it could be practical or cost-effective. But if it could be, this may be an answer...