Well that's today's little bit of weirdness.
CBRE has the Chemical Building listed for sale. Doesn't look like Campo will be redeveloping.
Good (temporary) news is that a bunch of metal cladding was recently installed, so the building is more secure than it has been in quite a while. Too bad that they're walking away from the project though. Maybe we'll get residential next time, but hotel is probably still more likely.
- 3,762
something must be horribly wrong with it. isn't this like the 5th owner to turn around and sell shortly after buying? i'm worried at some point demolition is going creep into the conversation. or arson.
- 6,117
^There was a comment somewhere (reddit probably) that the original design, incorporating only one single, central stair hall, has made meeting modern fire codes prohibitively expensive. Apparently it's incorporated into the rounded bay that protrudes out the back of the building, and that makes sense, since it's directly opposite the main entrance off Olive. If there's really no other stair (and I don't know the building so I can't verify it, and man, that would honestly surprise me) then I can see why retrofitting probably at least two additional stair stacks (at the end of each wing) would be a real challenge. Would really cut down on your usable floor space, it'd have to be an engineering challenge, and it would surely be extremely expensive.
I wonder if there'd be any way the City could waive the two-stair requirement, obviously the building was occupied not so long ago.
- 6,117
^I could well be wrong with my guess about two additional. I'm neither architect nor structural engineer. Am I remembering correctly that every occupied room requires two separate routes of egress? That's why I was thinking they might need two more, since one new stair would leave one wing with only one route of egress. The one wing isn't terribly long, so maybe it wouldn't apply, even if it is true. Not really sure. I'm not even entirely sure that's what the problem is. Just a half recalled comment from somewhere. (Likely reddit, which is probably worth about the same thing as comments from silly composer types here are.)
- 2,620
Perhaps the collab with Hotel St. Louis can revive someday. A few short sky bridges between the buildings could maybe be enough to waive the requirement for a second stair? Share the stairs
- 502
They were hired to list the building again? Chemical isn't shown on the CBRE website or Loopnet.STLAPTS wrote: ↑Feb 23, 2024CBRE has the Chemical Building listed for sale. Doesn't look like Campo will be redeveloping.
This is my understanding...symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Feb 25, 2024^I could well be wrong with my guess about two additional. I'm neither architect nor structural engineer. Am I remembering correctly that every occupied room requires two separate routes of egress? That's why I was thinking they might need two more, since one new stair would leave one wing with only one route of egress. The one wing isn't terribly long, so maybe it wouldn't apply, even if it is true. Not really sure. I'm not even entirely sure that's what the problem is. Just a half recalled comment from somewhere. (Likely reddit, which is probably worth about the same thing as comments from silly composer types here are.)
They will most likely require 2 new stair stacks, as the current single existing stair has radius treads, does not have the required width for capacity, rise/run is not to standards, so that existing stair is most likely unable to be considered an egress stair.
Exit separation distances depends on if there is a sprinkler system, the buildings construction type, among other life safety items, but the run is typically 150-300'. I bet that stair is well within distance requirements, but regardless, its current construction makes it non-code compliant and therefore punts it in to "ornamental stair" category instead of egress.
Absolutely beautiful stairs though, and I hope who ever does renovate this building highlights them instead of remove/replace with code compliant stairs.
More detail photos on Nextstl here.
https://nextstl.com/2017/09/chemical-bu ... ent-begin/
More detail photos on Nextstl here.
https://nextstl.com/2017/09/chemical-bu ... ent-begin/
- 1,792
they are cool but if they could replace them with a new single staircase that satisfied the building codes and made the project financially viable... then sorry but bye bye stairs.stlnative wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2024Absolutely beautiful stairs though, and I hope who ever does renovate this building highlights them instead of remove/replace with code compliant stairs.
More detail photos on Nextstl here.
https://nextstl.com/2017/09/chemical-bu ... ent-begin/
Honestly I have a hard time seeing those stairs demolished at all. I'm willing to bet they are a protected historical element and must be maintained and restored. The new owner will most likely be forced into creating a new internal egress stair tower or 2. Far from impossible, but most likely financially infeasible for most unless a developer with deep pockets takes interest.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2024they are cool but if they could replace them with a new single staircase that satisfied the building codes and made the project financially viable... then sorry but bye bye stairs.stlnative wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2024Absolutely beautiful stairs though, and I hope who ever does renovate this building highlights them instead of remove/replace with code compliant stairs.
More detail photos on Nextstl here.
https://nextstl.com/2017/09/chemical-bu ... ent-begin/
- 1,792
Deep pockets are almost irrelevant the whole thing will be financed anyway. The question is whether there is enough ROI to invest. It won't be redeveloped as a charity case by anyone, so if the 2 new stairwell make the project inviable, then in a decade or two we will be talking demo, and if the building has to be demoed the stairs go with it.stlnative wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2024Honestly I have a hard time seeing those stairs demolished at all. I'm willing to bet they are a protected historical element and must be maintained and restored. The new owner will most likely be forced into creating a new internal egress stair tower or 2. Far from impossible, but most likely financially infeasible for most unless a developer with deep pockets takes interest.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Feb 27, 2024they are cool but if they could replace them with a new single staircase that satisfied the building codes and made the project financially viable... then sorry but bye bye stairs.stlnative wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2024Absolutely beautiful stairs though, and I hope who ever does renovate this building highlights them instead of remove/replace with code compliant stairs.
More detail photos on Nextstl here.
https://nextstl.com/2017/09/chemical-bu ... ent-begin/
Risking demolition because a beautiful building that has stood since the 1890s is deemed "unsafe" by modern fire codes. Completely absurd. For those unaware, the 2-stair requirement is a distinctly American thing that is absolutely not needed to keep people safe from a fire.
- 1,792
I would have thought there would be some kind of grandfather clause but I am running under the assumption that developer aren't purposely demanding they get to install staircases so as to stymy the whole project. Somebody in authority is driving this and honestly they may be right on the law, i couldn't say. If they are then you have to assess a best path forward within the bounds of the law. Everything else is just tilting at windmills.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Feb 28, 2024Risking demolition because a beautiful building that has stood since the 1890s is deemed "unsafe" by modern fire codes. Completely absurd. For those unaware, the 2-stair requirement is a distinctly American thing that is absolutely not needed to keep people safe from a fire.
I guess if the developer forgoes historic tax credits and other financing incentives they could do whatever they wanted to the building, historic or not.
Optics would be terrible tho.
Optics would be terrible tho.
^Still have to work within building code, so not exactly anything they want. But you can make non-historic alterations without the incentives. But your sources suffer while your uses probably don't decrease enough.
34 million in tax credits would likely be lost if they removed the rear stairs.
Obviously you have to work within, hence the issue with historic stairs not meeting code, and thus requiring 2 new egress stair towers somewhere. Still the same problem, with less money available to you. I guess they could rip out the back wall and extend it, rebuild stairs. Still alot of cost, and still not meeting 2 exit options.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Mar 04, 2024^Still have to work within building code, so not exactly anything they want.
- 975
