urbanSTL

If Vertical Realty could purchase Cupples 7 without negatively impacting the city's credit rating, the building would likely be saved. Unfortunately, it appears they don't have the necessary resources and are attempting to shift risk to the city. Why else would there be a need to make the city the master lessee?

I wanted to believe that Vertical Realty could save this building. But as the adage goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it likely is...

^ You're making assumptions. Again, why couldn't Vertical Realty obtain financing without placing the city as master lessee? If they had the money, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, it appears they attempted to catalyze the urbanist community and publicly antagonize/scapegoat the Treasurer.

Remember, these are the same California developers that couldn't finance the Chemical Building (Alexa). I don't know how many corporations they've formed and later declared bankruptcy on since they've arrived. And we're just supposed to take their word as carte blanche?

This doesn't even begin to address how this partnership group treats others. Personally, I've had horrible experiences with them that I don't feel like going into detail with at this time.

innov8ion wrote:^
Remember, these are the same developers that couldn't finance the Chemical Building (Alexa). I don't know how many corporations they've formed and later declared bankruptcy on since they've arrived. This appears to be a pattern for this Los Angeles development team.

In fairness to VR. Believe this group is local after they parted ways with the Los Angeles Partner. Someone with better knowledge can clarify but think it is fair to say that your associating a group or entity that no longer exists

Alex Ihnen wrote:^^ It appears the problem is that the city is drawing the line at "zero theoretical risk". That seems beyond silly for a building that would add much to the district. Property tax alone from a couple years of occupancy would makes sense for the city financially. Sadly, just because something makes sense doesn't mean it will happen.

I don't see it as zero tolerance for risk. I see it as a city that doesn't want to take the liability of owning of an unstable large commercial/privat building. And if they do take possession they have made it very clear of their intentions. Also, in fairness to a city that has to balance a budget that includes everything from streets, to parks, to sanitation to the Police and Fire protection.

dredger wrote:

innov8ion wrote:^
Remember, these are the same developers that couldn't finance the Chemical Building (Alexa). I don't know how many corporations they've formed and later declared bankruptcy on since they've arrived. This appears to be a pattern for this Los Angeles development team.

In fairness to VR. Believe this group is local after they parted ways with the Los Angeles Partner. Someone with better knowledge can clarify but think it is fair to say that your associating a group or entity that no longer exists

Alex Ihnen wrote:^^ It appears the problem is that the city is drawing the line at "zero theoretical risk". That seems beyond silly for a building that would add much to the district. Property tax alone from a couple years of occupancy would makes sense for the city financially. Sadly, just because something makes sense doesn't mean it will happen.

I don't see it as zero tolerance for risk. I see it as a city that doesn't want to take the liability of owning of an unstable large commercial/privat building. And if they do take possession they have made it very clear of their intentions. Also, in fairness to a city that has to balance a budget that includes everything from streets, to parks, to sanitation to the Police and Fire protection.

It doesn't matter where they're from. Curtis Schroeder and at least some carryover partner(s) continue to be involved so Vertical Realty is essentially of the same composition.

You might be more sympathetic if they (and a close friend of theirs) did to you what they did to me. Anyway, I'm not asking for sympathy. Just sharing what I know of their record in St. Louis because it's far from all roses.

^Just ridiculous. I guess she is technically doing her job. And there are safety concerns. However, it seems like she's more interested is saving her own behind from a lawsuit in the event of a collapse or breaking the contract more than anything else.

Its disappointing to see no sense of compromise or vision from her side.

Alex Ihnen wrote:^ I think the track record of getting deals closed is noteworthy.

As far as I know, they've only developed the Meridian in St. Louis. Nothing else has been closed and completed.

Alex Ihnen wrote:In this case, the concerns about the city are:

c) the defensiveness of publicly elected officials (and their kin)

I'm not suggesting that every side in this matter performed wholly admirably but when accusations start flying, it's hard to blame those for defending themselves. And if you review your own communications, you'll find that you were tossing out some passive aggressive bombs of your own.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't believe that advocacy and antagonism mix well. No one says you've gotta be docile or compliant, but going out of your way to be a jerk with stakeholders that could make or break your next cause can't be considered the best tact.

Alex Ihnen wrote:e) seeming inability to be creative and/or deal with building issue in an open manner

Did the city not keep the building up for as long as they could, working against those that would have torn it down long ago? How long has the city been openly seeking redevelopment for this property?

As much as you like to blame the city, the fact is that the free market and our community failed to come to the plate and save Cupples 7. But then again, it's always easier to point the finger at the other guy.

innov8ion wrote: Did the city not keep the building up for as long as they could, working against those that would have torn it down long ago? How long has the city been openly seeking redevelopment for this property?

Just curious, but what did the city actually do to seek redevelopment? Slay made a comment in the PD article that they (paraphrasing) looked all over the country for developers. What does "seeking" and "looking" actually involve? Phone calls? Emails? Personals? I mean, the city didn't put out an RFP until a couple of months ago, correct?

urban_dilettante wrote:

innov8ion wrote: Did the city not keep the building up for as long as they could, working against those that would have torn it down long ago? How long has the city been openly seeking redevelopment for this property?

Just curious, but what did the city actually do to seek redevelopment? Slay made a comment in the PD article that they (paraphrasing) looked all over the country for developers. What does "seeking" and "looking" actually involve? Phone calls? Emails? Personals? I mean, the city didn't put out an RFP until a couple of months ago, correct?

I don't claim to be an expert, but here goes. I've attended only one Preservation Board meeting but that one regarded a proposed demolition for Cupples 7. The City saved it. If the city wanted Cupples 7 torn down so badly, wouldn't they have done it then? Seems kinda silly, doesn't it?

Believe it or not, city administrations have finite resources. Thousands upon thousands of buildings exist in St. Louis city and a fair number are at risk. Do you propose the city create a department that prioritizes buildings to be saved and sets up hotlines to developers and financiers world-wide? Sure, let's get on that...

I think it's fair to suggest that the city's role is as facilitator. There are already agencies such as Landmarks Association, LCRA, SLDC, etc that perform similar roles and can connect with varied stakeholders. If there are gaps, why aren't enterprising urbanists filling them?

Most importantly, your claim is wrong. Here's the timeline for Cupples 7 which includes the LCRA acting to save Cupples 7 after Montgomery Bank took over the property from Ballpark Lofts, LLC.

Here's a quick recap of the Cupples 7 timeline:

- In September 2011, the city closed streets around the building at 11th and Spruce over fears that falling bricks would cause injuries.
- In November 2011, developer Kevin McGowan requested a demolition permit, saying he could not afford the repairs needed to stabilize the building for future redevelopment.
- Later that month, the city's Preservation Board denied the demolition request, a decision upheld last June by the district court and in January by the Court of Appeals. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court denied a request to hear the case.
- Inverse condemnation proceedings (basically, a claim by the developer and the bank that owns the building that the city is preventing them from getting what value they can out of the site by denying the demolition) were set to begin in front of Judge Steven Ohmer on June 3.

After the demolition permit was denied, the city posted a request for redevelopment proposals on its website, says St. Louis Development Corporation deputy director Otis Williams. Prospective buyers were required to prove they could immediately spend the money necessary to stabilize the building - the cost of which was at least $4 million in 2011.

"While a number of people have talked to us, most of them have found that there is not a willing financial partner given the high risk of trying to rehab this particular facility," Williams said. The city will entertain offers, but he said demolition is the more likely scenario.

Alex Ihnen wrote:Right. It's not that the city "wants" it torn down. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I think circumstances conspired to doom Cupples 7. I wish the city had a way, or made use of existing regulations, to prevent a building from falling into such disrepair. What's frustrating, ultimately, is that no one owns the decision or process. That's not to blame individuals, but to point out that there's a lack of coherent vision for the city.

Preservation isn't exactly unique to St. Louis. Are there highly effective preservation models in other locales that can be adapted? What are the common challenges faced?

What I'm trying to say is -- what is your coherent preservation vision, Alex? I think this issue is a little more complex than some make it out to be. If it were simpler, we likely wouldn't be having this problem...

innov8ion wrote:What I'm trying to say is -- what is your coherent preservation vision,

This is complete spitballing and probably not all that well thought out, but I would offer the following thoughts to the discussion:

I think effective preservation for buildings needs to combine private dollars and "want to" with public capabilities like the right to enter upon and work on private property for the public good and the ability to to recoup funds spent on these efforts (either in some form of a mechanic's lien or a city tax lien). Because the average citizen is not going to want to fund this or pay higher taxes for saving what many of them consider "derelict" buildings.

I'm no lawyer but a repeatable effective preservation strategy must deal with the legal issues of entering and working on private property with out permission and must deal with the financial issues of attempting to recoup those costs for the program to be sustainable. In the case of high profile buildings like Cupples the hail mary wish of a blank check donor and the visibility of the property might help wash the legal & funding issues away with the City's help but that sort of effort does not make day to day preservation very feasible.

So perhaps a non profit organization could be funded via private (tax deductible) donations and perhaps the elective "dollar more" contributions you see on city water bills so that philanthropic (personal and corporate) funding both large and small can contribute the funds on an initial and ongoing basis.

And that organization would have to be blessed by and perhaps even legislated to act either in concert with or as an agent of the city LRA, Public Works Dept and what ever other appropriate organizations to access and repair private properties identified for preservation with out the owners permission in cases where it may not be granted but preservation is desired. (Avalon Theater comes to mind).

Additionally there would need to be a repeatable mechanism that doesn't require a costly lawsuit each time to recoup funds spent by the preservation organization perhaps as a lien to the property that would be paid back when a developer takes the newly stabilized building and closes on construction financing.

And given the scopes of work needed in many of these preservation cases it seems necessary for private contractors to be able to be utilized to competently complete the work and maybe in exchange for earnings tax rebates or other incentives to the contractor plus the opportunity for the work, the quid pro quo is these preservation jobs require the contractor to utilize young adult city residents as part of a job training program so they learn skills and trades "on the job". So when soliciting funding donations and celebrating successful projects you can put faces with the buildings for additional benefits gained for the community.

Maybe this all already exists and is just not funded, I dunno, thought I would add my 2 cents as it it came to me.

innov8ion wrote: Most importantly, your claim is wrong. Here's the timeline for Cupples 7 which includes the LCRA acting to save Cupples 7 after Montgomery Bank took over the property from Ballpark Lofts, LLC.

Here's a quick recap of the Cupples 7 timeline:

- In September 2011, the city closed streets around the building at 11th and Spruce over fears that falling bricks would cause injuries.
- In November 2011, developer Kevin McGowan requested a demolition permit, saying he could not afford the repairs needed to stabilize the building for future redevelopment.
- Later that month, the city's Preservation Board denied the demolition request, a decision upheld last June by the district court and in January by the Court of Appeals. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court denied a request to hear the case.
- Inverse condemnation proceedings (basically, a claim by the developer and the bank that owns the building that the city is preventing them from getting what value they can out of the site by denying the demolition) were set to begin in front of Judge Steven Ohmer on June 3.

After the demolition permit was denied, the city posted a request for redevelopment proposals on its website, says St. Louis Development Corporation deputy director Otis Williams. Prospective buyers were required to prove they could immediately spend the money necessary to stabilize the building - the cost of which was at least $4 million in 2011.

"While a number of people have talked to us, most of them have found that there is not a willing financial partner given the high risk of trying to rehab this particular facility," Williams said. The city will entertain offers, but he said demolition is the more likely scenario.

Technically I didn't make any claims, but thank you for pointing out that the RFP was posted at the end of 2011.

And I'm not saying the city has the resources to chase down developers; that's why I was asking. However, IF all the City did was post the RFP to their website, then Slay was making up the part about "looking all over the country" for developers. Looking implies proactivity.

roger wyoming II wrote:Just in case peeps haven't seen the latest:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/06/24/ ... this-week/

edit:

“It’s time,” [Jones] told KMOX News. “I mean, we’ve had ten warehouses there and we saved eight. I think that’s a pretty good percentage.”

I feel so much better now!!

This quote is from that article:

“Cupples 7 sits on the old Chouteau’s Pond and it’s on a marsh so it would be a minimum $2 million just to stabilize the base of the building and then you add another $4 million just to stabilize the building itself,” [St. Louis City Treasurer Tishaura Jones] said.

Tishaura Jones is incorrect; Cupples 7 does not sit where Chouteau's Pond once was. Chouteau's Pond, a man-made pond, was filled in by the city by the 1850s and became the location of the first rail lines. As you can see on the map below, the location of Cupples 7 (located at 1014 Spruce Street) is far from the former location of the pond.

I wonder how many potential developers immediately dismissed Cupples 7 due to misinformation about the Cupples 7 foundation.

I'm not sure who built Mill City Museum in Minneapolis, but the potential for something similar is obvious. The museum was once the largest flour plant in the world, destroyed by fire. Half crumbling, it is now a museum, concert venue, & event space providing life to the riverfront and generating revenue for a forward thinking city.
The mix of old & new, could be a wonderful opportunity. Maybe something could be done?!

millcitymuseum.org

Took this from the website:

During the late 1990s, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency cleaned up the rubble and fortified the walls. Shortly thereafter, the Minnesota Historical Society announced its plan to develop a museum on the site.

The fact of the matter is, the renovation of this building will be expensive, very expensive. Several factors are working against redevelopment in the city. The main factor is lending. Want to develop in downtown St. Louis? Then you're going to have to invest 30-50% (cash) of the total project costs. Several local banks have lending limits well below the possible redevelopment costs. Additionally, our market isn't attractive in the traditional lending sense. We don't have high job growth, perception of high crime, and we have a high office vacancy rate. Development does happen here, look at the Laurel & MX and Park Pacific. But those projects would not have happened without the AFL-CIO purchasing bonds that were issued to complete the development. And like traditional financing, bond financing takes time. Another thing is, Stl doesn't have a plethora of (large) commercial real estate developers and there's not many (if any) non local ones who are willing to enter this market despite the myriad of tax incentives.

I don't know how many of you know John Steffen, but he was a great guy with an amazing vision for St. Louis. And even though he had some misfortunes, I would welcome him back in a heartbeat.

Vertical Realty Advisors is working on a different financing plan for rehabbing Cupples 7, and the deadline is Friday, June 28, 2013.

http://fox2now.com/2013/06/27/cupples-7 ... next-week/

http://www.stltoday.com/business/column ... a2066.html

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/386056 ... demolition

missingsgrand wrote:I'm not sure who built Mill City Museum in Minneapolis, but the potential for something similar is obvious. The museum was once the largest flour plant in the world, destroyed by fire. Half crumbling, it is now a museum, concert venue, & event space providing life to the riverfront and generating revenue for a forward thinking city.
The mix of old & new, could be a wonderful opportunity. Maybe something could be done?!

millcitymuseum.org

Took this from the website:

During the late 1990s, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency cleaned up the rubble and fortified the walls. Shortly thereafter, the Minnesota Historical Society announced its plan to develop a museum on the site.

It is an amazing thing to look at, however the museum itself...is rather....lame..^_^