urbanSTL

850K (it will probably be over 1M) is a lot of money to put a bunch of bricks in a dumptruck. Just leave the damn building alone for awhile. There's a bunch of momentum in STL give it some more time. Use that 1M fix about a 1000 smaller buildings/houses throughout the city.

^ There are safety concerts. (Real or percieved)

Apply that 1M towards helping a developer renovate?

From my outsiders view it appears the other Cupples buildings have been very successful conversions. It's shocking that someone cannot make the numbers work.

^This wouldn't be a conversion as much as it would be building a completely new structure within the four brick walls of Cupples 7. The interior is completely destroyed. In terms of the safety issues, I think the city has to pay particularly close attention to this one. On many days thousands of Cardinals fans are streaming passed it, and it's built right up to the sidewalk and a highway off-ramp. In light of what just happened in Bangladesh, I think it's good they're keeping a close eye on it.

When some of our largest and most profitable local companies are choosing to build their headquarters in Clayton (Centene) and the suburbs (Express Scripts) and the billionaire owned and highly profitable ball club down the street from this site cannot develop the ground they own free and clear adjacent to their revenue generating 3 mllion fan plus drawing ballpark its no wonder the wrecking ball is coming for this building. A shame to be sure.

A new high rise building within the walls of the existing structure would be awesome but we don't even see new high rise buildings built downtown on subsidized ground like Ballpark Village. Short of Apple or Google or Berkshire Hathaway deciding to build a privately funded headquarters at Cupples 7 I don't see a miracle out there.

I didn't win Mega Millions last night so I can't help either. Maybe Powerball tonight.

The real bummer is the Cupples buildings that have been developed are great and seem to be highly successful with a nice mix of uses. Sure would have been nice to have another one follow suit.

The article in the Post says the lot will become "green space"; not a parking lot. Hopefully that means the City will be encouraging quick development of the site.

Historically, I gotta believe that demolition is right up there with shoes and booze as a reliable business in stl. Do you think the people that profit from demolition are just chilling out at home watching tv waiting for the city to call and let them know of the next demolition? The demolition people actively search and lobby for the next one. And it is has been incredibly profitable over the years. Its likely that the racket extends into some bureaucrats at city hall and that is a toxic mix and never bodes well for the PEOPLE.

How do we create an effective lobby to tear down Church's Chickens, Captain D's, abandoned gas stations, orphaned highways, and parking garages?

From the Post Dispatch:
"With time running out, a development company is trying to pull together a plan to save the endangered Cupples 7 warehouse in downtown St. Louis. Vertical Realty Advisors faces a deadline of June 7 to show city officials a plan to stabilize, then renovate the seven-story building."

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... 8a357.html

SPACEarchitects @SPACEarchitects

@MayorSlay We have serious team trying to save bldg. No significant increase in danger from 1 year ago. Allow us some time to save it.

I missed this from SPACE architects. Good to hear potential 2 groups are trying for proposals.

there's a lot to be positive about these days.

From the RFT. Clock ticking

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... _jones.php

"This is not an ideal situation," Jones says. "However, we are stuck with this option...and have to execute it."

This is what bothers me the most - She acts as if she has to spend the money to demo. Why can't she use that money to stabilize? Why hasn't she answered that question? If the building is stabilized, wouldn't it be more attractive to sell? And simply stating "we need a developer with money" sounds as if they want to be completely hands off. Cities don't get built without public sector participation; especially in a city like St. Louis. But they give TIF's out like candy on Halloween, and they can't/won't contribute to stabilizing a significant building; its baffling.

Why hasn't she said that she will pay to stabilize the building if a developer can incorporate the cost into their acquisition price? She acquires the note for $850k then spends the $500k (or whatever the amount is) to stabilize it (the most cost effect way). Then sell the building to a developer for $1.4 million; or more. Developers who have to get financing, have to bring equity to the table, then it still takes months to close. That equity could go to stabilization, but then they wouldn't have the necessary equity to secure the financing. Like she said, "this is not an ideal situation" but its not an impossible one to navigate.

There seems to be less and less will from the City's side to get something done and they keep pointing fingers at Larry Williams and developers.

Or maybe they are doing this to give us people who care a heart attack before they announce the building will be saved.

^ the stabilization cost wouldn't be $500K, most likely $5,000,000 or north. That is a significant cost nubmer in anyone's book. To put some context, Rally St. Louis has raised at most $100k for anyone one project and that included big hefty single donations.

Can't really speak for contractual requirements let alone real estate contracts or policy/city charter that dictates what treasurer's office can or can't do.

stlien wrote:

"This is not an ideal situation," Jones says. "However, we are stuck with this option...and have to execute it."

This is what bothers me the most - She acts as if she has to spend the money to demo. Why can't she use that money to stabilize? Why hasn't she answered that question? If the building is stabilized, wouldn't it be more attractive to sell? And simply stating "we need a developer with money" sounds as if they want to be completely hands off. Cities don't get built without public sector participation; especially in a city like St. Louis. But they give TIF's out like candy on Halloween, and they can't/won't contribute to stabilizing a significant building; its baffling.

Why hasn't she said that she will pay to stabilize the building if a developer can incorporate the cost into their acquisition price? She acquires the note for $850k then spends the $500k (or whatever the amount is) to stabilize it (the most cost effect way). Then sell the building to a developer for $1.4 million; or more. Developers who have to get financing, have to bring equity to the table, then it still takes months to close. That equity could go to stabilization, but then they wouldn't have the necessary equity to secure the financing. Like she said, "this is not an ideal situation" but its not an impossible one to navigate.

There seems to be less and less will from the City's side to get something done and they keep pointing fingers at Larry Williams and developers.

Or maybe they are doing this to give us people who care a heart attack before they announce the building will be saved.

I sympathize with your point, but I really wonder how far $500k or even $5million would go toward stabilization. At a bare minimum to make stabilization work you will need to stop the water from getting in and reinforce all the walls, which I'm sure would cost several million dollars. Maybe that work gets the building a couple years on the shelf until a developer with a feasible and financable redevelopment plan steps forward. Or maybe after a couple of years, the building is once again crumbling and on the demolition list. That's a tough gamble to take using public $$$.

I'm not a big fan of the Treasurer's office's deal (especially the use of public $$ to buy the bank note). I also agree that it seems everyone is using Larry Williams as an excuse. The City should just threaten to condemn the property as a public nuisance/safety hazard, demolish the building and put a lien for the cost of the demolition on the property - that way the bank (i.e., the party who really should bear the risk) would need to either (a) step up and use its own money to stabilize the building to prevent demolition or (b) risk losing its investment if the City goes through with the demolition and forecloses on the lien.