^ No kidding. I'm sure the treasurer's office would give anyone who dared to question the complete demolition some bs about how the entire structure was unsound, or that funds were allocated for demolition of the complete structure, etc. Simply put, there are still way too many people in positions of power in this city that couldn't care less about our #1 advantage- our built environment.
- 8,912
so. damn. true. sigh...threeonefour wrote:^ No kidding. I'm sure the treasurer's office would give anyone who dared to question the complete demolition some bs about how the entire structure was unsound, or that funds were allocated for demolition of the complete structure, etc. Simply put, there are still way too many people in positions of power in this city that couldn't care less about our #1 advantage- our built environment.
- 3,762
not would. did. over and over again on their Facebook page, in STLToday, and on the radio.threeonefour wrote:No kidding. I'm sure the treasurer's office would give anyone who dared to question the complete demolition some bs about how the entire structure was unsound, or that funds were allocated for demolition of the complete structure, etc.
- 1,218
I hope you all are registered to vote. That is the only true way to voice your disapproval of those who pick away at the built environment.
- 4
debaliviere wrote:Too bad they can't/won't save the portion of the building on the right. Looks like it's in decent shape.
My thoughts exactly. Even if you concede to the idea that it was too late/expensive to save Cupples 7, it sure looks like that portion would safely stand if they just left it alone.
What I thought was interesting is that Spirtas complained about the demo team selection process at Northwest Plaza which brought heat to Environmental Operations then they were awarded Cupples 7 demo.
- 3,766
- 8,155
^ You can laugh if it you want and regardless of whether you feel the demo was necessary or not, there is no question that the needless deterioration -- and now loss -- of the building is a loss for the city.
- 49
I just don't see how it is such a major loss, if it is something that has been vacant for so long and no one wanted to then by that fact no one really will miss it. Now just hope something cool can hopefully take its place in the future. I just wish the times were good enough to get back to the new big building stage and that the money was there to do it...
- 8,155
^ The prospects for bringing redevelopment at that spot were much greater with a rehab of Cupples 7 than with new construction. I don't think we'll see anything there for decades. And the land won't even bring in property tax. This was a very viable redevelopment prospect just a few short years ago. And then serious neglect under exposed ownership was allowed to happen without any accountability and it all went downhill from there.
Hell, it was a pretty viable re-development prospect just days before demolition. The treasurer just wasn't willing to take on any risk whatsoever. No risk, and absolutely zero reward.
- 3,762
Aside from your total abandonment of logic (those without millions of dollars for purchasing and rehabbing old warehouses can still miss them), this statement is misinformed. It's not that nobody "wanted to". The building had been owned for years by the McGowans. It wasn't just sitting there for sale the whole time. In its last few years of life, after they allowed it to deteriorate, it became much more difficult to find a developer.inTheGrove wrote:...if it is something that has been vacant for so long and no one wanted to then by that fact no one really will miss it.
- 2,929
^Agreed. This building wasn't just not developed by the owner (because the ownership group spent all their monies & ran out their credit to the point where they didn't have the free cash flow to follow-through on their intentions) but was mismanaged so very, very much that they allowed the property itself to rapidly deteriorate due to environmental exposure (i.e. rain falling freely on wooden beams and floors ruining the wood).
This building was not just acquired, but entrusted, to be redeveloped. The old ownership failed both ways. And the City was left not only having to pay to demo it, but the taxes to be paid by the old owners still haven't been collected.
Truly shameful...
Going forward: My understanding is that the footprint of Building #7 is to be converted into another urban park, with the hopes that down the road it will be attractive to new development sometime in the near future.
Q: What about the new law on private development of City parks? The same law passed focused on BJC constructing on that garage-based stretch of Forest Park east of Kingshighway, requiring a public vote for any future park land being sold to private developers?
Should this land become a park by the City, would any future potential developer expressing interest here have to go through a public vote first before they can rebuild a building on this site?
This building was not just acquired, but entrusted, to be redeveloped. The old ownership failed both ways. And the City was left not only having to pay to demo it, but the taxes to be paid by the old owners still haven't been collected.
Truly shameful...
Going forward: My understanding is that the footprint of Building #7 is to be converted into another urban park, with the hopes that down the road it will be attractive to new development sometime in the near future.
Q: What about the new law on private development of City parks? The same law passed focused on BJC constructing on that garage-based stretch of Forest Park east of Kingshighway, requiring a public vote for any future park land being sold to private developers?
Should this land become a park by the City, would any future potential developer expressing interest here have to go through a public vote first before they can rebuild a building on this site?
- 49
I don't believe the general public would even know how to best vote on it most likely.
- 3,762
A ballot measure, like anything else.inTheGrove wrote:I don't believe the general public would even know how to best vote on it most likely.
Perhaps that law should just be revoked. It sounds pretty unnecessary and expensive.
- 8,155
looks like there'll be some kind of meeting this evening at the library on how to use the felled Cupples 7 site as a park.... just what we need downtown 
I doubt the city even put out an rfp or gauged interest in a developer actually putting a useful building up.
I doubt the city even put out an rfp or gauged interest in a developer actually putting a useful building up.
Is it open to the public? I wouldn't be able to make it, but someone should go down there and speak out against this. Hell, the city should give away the land, so long as it gets developed (parking lots don't count) and meets a few stipulations.
- 8,155
And I'm sure the city parking garage next door could use some customers.... the city could also do a 99 yr. renewal lease deal and grant a developer complete tax abatement as an incentive.MRNHS wrote:Is it open to the public? I wouldn't be able to make it, but someone should go down there and speak out against this. Hell, the city should give away the land, so long as it gets developed (parking lots don't count) and meets a few stipulations.
Did anyone go to the meeting at the library about the Cupples 7 park?
WITF are they planning a park on that spot when there are several parks just blocks away and the Kiener Plaza remake is about to get underway?
A modern residential and/or office infill mirroring Cupples Station architecture should go there.
There's enough park land and garages downtown.
A modern residential and/or office infill mirroring Cupples Station architecture should go there.
There's enough park land and garages downtown.
Absolutely clueless. Was on Wash. Ave. this evening on a typical deserted weekday night with an out of town friend. "Well this is nice, it's kind of like having the entire city to yourself."arch city wrote:WITF are they planning a park on that spot when there are several parks just blocks away and the Kiener Plaza remake is about to get underway?
A modern residential and/or office infill mirroring Cupples Station architecture should go there.
There's enough park land and garages downtown.
Sigh...
- 40
Below is a listed summary from the meeting about the empty lot.
1. Everyone wants a building on that lot.
2. Everyone understands it may take up to 10 years for demand to warrant new construction.
3. The residents and office workers surrounding the lot want to activate it in the meantime as opposed to having an empty dark space.
4. Everyone understands whatever is placed there will be temporary and that thought guided the discussion about what is feasible.
5. Everyone liked the idea of using a portion of the lot for an off-leash dog park for the residents since they already walk their dogs and allow them to do their business on the lot.
6. Everyone also liked the idea of finding another use for the remaining areas of the lot. Ideas floated were a few small plots for a community garden facilitated by Gateway Greening and a seating area for people during lunchtime.
7. The developers in the area who are interested in building something there in the future expressed that those ideas would not inhibit future construction from a cost or logistical standpoint, and they love the idea of activating the space to draw attention to the area in the meantime.
8. The Treasurer's Office owns the lot, and is amenable to leasing it for use until development occurs. This is of course contingent upon the plan they are given.
9. Currently, there is no funding for any of the ideas floated during the meeting.
10. Attendees learned that separate planning is underway to improve the pedestrian experience along the Spruce Street corridor. This may include some or all of the following: traffic calming measures, improved lighting, safer crosswalks, and larger sidewalks.
1. Everyone wants a building on that lot.
2. Everyone understands it may take up to 10 years for demand to warrant new construction.
3. The residents and office workers surrounding the lot want to activate it in the meantime as opposed to having an empty dark space.
4. Everyone understands whatever is placed there will be temporary and that thought guided the discussion about what is feasible.
5. Everyone liked the idea of using a portion of the lot for an off-leash dog park for the residents since they already walk their dogs and allow them to do their business on the lot.
6. Everyone also liked the idea of finding another use for the remaining areas of the lot. Ideas floated were a few small plots for a community garden facilitated by Gateway Greening and a seating area for people during lunchtime.
7. The developers in the area who are interested in building something there in the future expressed that those ideas would not inhibit future construction from a cost or logistical standpoint, and they love the idea of activating the space to draw attention to the area in the meantime.
8. The Treasurer's Office owns the lot, and is amenable to leasing it for use until development occurs. This is of course contingent upon the plan they are given.
9. Currently, there is no funding for any of the ideas floated during the meeting.
10. Attendees learned that separate planning is underway to improve the pedestrian experience along the Spruce Street corridor. This may include some or all of the following: traffic calming measures, improved lighting, safer crosswalks, and larger sidewalks.