urbanSTL

The hardest part of any plan will be getting private owners to invest in derelict buildings. Some more willing to invest may own buildings in less than the sexiest locations. FInding a balance will be a challenge. Preservationists and City Hall might want to see the more visible, sexy buildings addressed. This is a tough challenge.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Preservationists should set their sights on establishing a coherent plan of action for dealing with abandoned buildings, rather than going from one crisis to the next (witness Cupples 7).

I absolutely agree. Simply throwing money (a scarce resource) at the situation is not a viable alternative. Who will determine the level of stabilization needed? Who will monitor it is done correctly and in a cost-efficient manner? How will the public measure its return on investment? What if a property needs additional stabilization work after a few years because no private developers were interested/capable of redeveloping the property? Will less historically-significant properties located in potentially sustainable districts get priority over more historically-significant properties surrounded by vacant or non-historical properties?

I think a few bright minds sitting in a room together could put together a workable program that will have positive results. Saving every last red brick isn't realistic. What is realistic is a competitive program where districts and individual properties could compete for stabilization funds based on the quality of the community planning for such districts and properties and the likelihood of their ultimate redevelopment.

^ Exactly. So the next time someone says, "we need to focus on Crunden Martin", the response should be, "okay, how does it fit into an overall, city-wide (or regional) plan for historic preservation and building stabilization?"

At least public safety isn't probably as big of a concern with this great building and its immediate neighbors. So it's got that going for it in the time being.

How so? It sits right across the street from a historic church still in use. High winds could easily knock down unstable walls near the top of the building. It's a mess, going further down hill by the day. Winter weather will only make things worse.

Rex Sinquefield, who is also an alum of Bishop DuBourg High School in St. Louis, could also easily buy out a couple of blocks of homes in St. Louis Hills Estates, tear them down, and build a new on campus baseball field for Bishop DuBourg.

Which do you think he'd do first?

One of the city's major failings has been not holding owners accountable for the state of their buildings. Cupples was the latest high-visibility example but it's far from the only one. Crunden-Martin is now being 'targeted' because it's another large, highly visible building that needs repair to remain viable for any sort of future reuse. If it falls, anything that replaces it is unlikely to be as much of an asset to the neighborhood as that building (once stabilized) is today. And the most likely scenario is that the property becomes a long-lasting pile of debris or a fenced-in grass or gravel lot. And finally, as has been mentioned before, stabilization is often no more expensive - in fact often cheaper - than demolition.

Buildings this large are expensive to repair, yes. But they're vastly more expensive to replace. This particular building was damaged by fire. Since all properties are required to have insurance, there should be funds to fix it. Even if they come at a glacial pace as is typical in most insurance claims - see Copia - there should be *something* made available immediately to at least stabilize the building until proper repairs can be made. If nothing has been done at all, then the city should be asking questions why.

Buildings may be privately owned, but each one is a contributor to the community. As such, the community ought to have a say in the state of the buildings contained therein. Speculators who buy buildings to make a profit need to know that maintaining the buildings they buy is part of the deal; owners who fail to do so should face repercussions. It's an imperfect analogy, but I know in my neighborhood in Affton if I fail to cut my grass or if the paint on my garage starts peeling I can expect a citation asking me to maintain my home or face a fine. That the owners of prominent structures in downtown Saint Louis are not held to the same standard is shameful. Preservationists' turning their attention to Crunden-Martin (as well as highlighting the failure of Cupples 7) is a way to start a dialog and hopefully save C-M from the same fate as C7.

That includes the Northside, though implimenting anything there is a completely different animal; an apples-to oranges comparison. Any property code enforcement is made immensely more complicated by the scope of deterioration currently and the fact that many of the individuals who own homes may not be able to afford the maintenance. The businesses (and LLCs) that do hold property in North Saint Louis should absolutely be held to that standard, though, and it should be made clear that any who purchase habitable buildings are going to be required to keep them habitable unless a replacement is constructed that contributes more to the area than the current building in habitable shape or at least stabilized/mothballed until repairs can be made. Owners who buy any property without maintaining that property, particularly those caught exposing a building to the elements to speed up deterioration should face fines at minimum. In addition, perhaps a database of 'bad owners' could be kept. Publicizing this list could be a way of 'public shaming'? Maybe those who own unmaintained property could be denied permits to do other work elsewhere?

I'm rambling, I know. Hopefully something sensible comes through out of all of that...

-RBB

^ Lots of good observations and suggestions, but also a couple of very big assumptions.

In particular, insuring a vacant building is not easy. Many insurance companies either will not insure or charge very high rates. It is very possible C-M was uninsured at the time of the fire. (Aside - it's also tough getting insurance if you are just next to a vacant building, but that's another subject).

Glad you drew a distinction regarding code enforcement between, say, Affton and North St. Louis. Big difference as you note. And indeed, the city's policies for code enforcement are uneven, being more lenient in lower income areas.

However, here's where we disagree. You say business owners in North City ought to be held to the same high standard of code enforcement as perhaps Affton. That really doesn't work. Just visit the area. It's a low income/distressed community.

More businesses fail, rents are lower, etc. So it's harder for owners of businesses to afford building maintenance than it is in say, South County.

These are very difficult challenges. There are no magic bullets. St. Louis is a legacy city with legacy problems.

Here's a suggestion - combine St. Louis City and County into one large taxing district, and assess all property owners say an extra $100 per year. That'd raise a few million per year. Put that money into a preservation fund to support strategic stabilization efforts.

As an Affton owner, would you pay?

Northside Neighbor wrote:^ Lots of good observations and suggestions, but also a couple of very big assumptions.

In particular, insuring a vacant building is not easy. Many insurance companies either will not insure or charge very high rates. It is very possible C-M was uninsured at the time of the fire. (Aside - it's also tough getting insurance if you are just next to a vacant building, but that's another subject).

Perhaps it was too big an assumption; still whatever happens to the building - stabilization now or demolition later - will cost money. And in the case of the Cupples (as well as Powell Square), the city ended up footing the bill to tear it down. So pressure the owner to do something. If he can't, then offer assistance; an outright grant, tax credit, low-interest loan, etc. Money spent by the city now to help stabilize a building will mean money not spent to tear it down later if it's allowed to deteriorate further. Years of demolition has proven that removing even eyesores is a bad thing for the region; even an empty building will remain an architectural asset to the area, which will in turn lead to a better community (and potentially one that yields more in revenue-generating taxes for the city in the long run).

Northside Neighbor wrote:Glad you drew a distinction regarding code enforcement between, say, Affton and North St. Louis. Big difference as you note. And indeed, the city's policies for code enforcement are uneven, being more lenient in lower income areas.

However, here's where we disagree. You say business owners in North City ought to be held to the same high standard of code enforcement as perhaps Affton. That really doesn't work. Just visit the area. It's a low income/distressed community.

More businesses fail, rents are lower, etc. So it's harder for owners of businesses to afford building maintenance than it is in say, South County.

These are very difficult challenges. There are no magic bullets. St. Louis is a legacy city with legacy problems.

I didn't intend to propose the exact same standards, no. But I do believe an owner that buys a usable building should be expected to keep that building usable. The fact that buildings weren't maintained in the first place - often by design - is a large reason the area's in the shape it's in today.

As was mentioned in the McKee thread, there are relatively few owner-occupied homes up north; most are owned by an LLC or a landlord(/slumlord). I don't think asking them to care for their buildings is unreasonable. And again, if that's a problem financially for them, work to find them assistance; an owner who minds his home(s), even if he's not generating much if any taxes in the near-term, is much preferable to an abandoned property or one maintained by the LRA.

And in that area many buildings are bought, the windows and doors removed, and then allowed to deteriorate so that they can be condemned and torn down. Owners who do that should face repercussions. There's no disincentive to do that today.

Enacting/enforcing housing codes won't magically bring back lost properties or neighborhoods. But it may at least slow the bleeding somewhat.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Here's a suggestion - combine St. Louis City and County into one large taxing district, and assess all property owners say an extra $100 per year. That'd raise a few million per year. Put that money into a preservation fund to support strategic stabilization efforts.

As an Affton owner, would you pay?

I absolutely would - that seems a small price to pay to improve the town I call home. But I suspect I'm in the minority.

-RBB

rbb - I really appreciate the spirit behind everything you are suggesting, but much of it is so broad that it doesn't really address realities on the ground.

First, as was brought up in the beginning of this thread, why should Crunden Martin be *the* building to get all sorts of public assistance for stabilization? It's a vacant building in a largely vacant corner of the city. Meanwhile there are literally hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of vacant buildings in occupied neighborhoods needing assistance, and most would be much cheaper to assist than the monster C-M building.

Next, re. dealing with problem building owners, similar situation. The housing courts are overflowing with cases of property owners being hauled into court for code violations. The city has legions of code enforcement officials, neighborhood improvement specialists, aldermen, city counselors, and on and on dealing with this issue on a daily basis. The system is overwhelmed. To suggest stepped up code enforcement is the answer fails to acknowledge the already overburdened situation the code enforcement system faces. It's massive. St. Louis County has never lived a life like this.

The bottom line is that the old way of addressing these problems has never "solved" the problem. More bureaucracy and enforcement are not the answer. The only thing that has ever really worked is a very granular, community-driven, place-based strategy. That's what worked in Soulard, the CWE, and Lafayette Square.

Those neighbors worked very hard to preserve their communities. Government is not enough. People have to personally make the commitment to their own neighborhoods to really make a difference.

It's fun playing the "what if" game.

"What if" in Affton, a person leaves a garage door sprung, windows broken, and holes in a roof? What happens? Chances are the County Building Division is all over this individual. How many buildings would this describe in Affton? Probably less than 2 or 3.

Now apply the scenario in St. Louis. How many buildings would this describe in STL City? More than you want to imagine.

How bad are things? I have heard stories of people with failed sewer systems literally sawz-alling off the stack where it enters the basement, allowing raw sewage to drain right out onto the basement floor, while still living in the home.

Meanwhile in other situations, pit bulls are released into drug houses, roaming free in the house with the doors chained shut, protecting drug stashes and gun-wielding drug dealers. Imagine the conditions inside.

It's enough to either turn your stomach or make you cry.

", but whatever."

Maybe his fellow alum, Twitter gazillionaire Jack Dorsey, will be the DuBourg benefactor then? It would be nice if someone would adopt the school similarly to how the Drurys have bankrolled improvements at SLUH and the Bommaritos at St. Mary's.

When it comes to net worth, the Drurys and Bommaritos are pikers compared to Jack Dorsey or Rex Sinquefield.

Re: the Northside: I'm not suggesting bureaucracy will fix all that ails North Saint Louis. Those who *can* afford it should be held to maintaining their properties. Those who can't should be offered assistance. That's been my point. The codes are good things by-and-large, so let's get as many people to follow them as possible by any means possible. And those who can but don't, those are the guys who are publicly shamed and denied the opportunity to take on anything else.

And likely something like this would need to be neighborhood-by-neighborhood, or at the very least ward-by-ward. Trying to fix everything that ails North City at once is an overwhelming problem. So instead take on a manageable chunk of properties in one neighborhood and stabilize them, then move on to the next. This could allow a slow but organic and sustainable recovery. North Saint Louis didn't become a mess overnight; similarly any effort to improve it would necessarily be a long one as well.

As for C-M, I don't think you should ignore it because there are other places that need help. Money spent to stabilize the building should be considered an investment, and even if some of it comes from the city (or the Fed, or by some miracle the state) it's likely to reap more of a return in tax dollars than letting the thing become an eyesore for years then be demolished on the taxpayer's dime for a non-contributing empty lot. And those theoretical long-term tax dollars could then be used to further restore other parts of the city years from now.

-RBB

Pretty basic reply to the idea of putting dollar one into the C-M building (especially now when there really is no plan for doing any publicly assisted stabilization of private buildings), and that would be, any public money put into the building would need to be matched in a significant way by the owner's own funds, or no deal.

What is the ratio of public to private $? Answering that question is why we need a real strategy. Absent same, I'd say it ought to be at least a 50/50 deal, and I would be willing to bet the owner would not take it.

We're probably talking close to a million dollars, if not at least several hundred thousand. It would be a huge cash outlay for a building today with very little market demand.

Just look at Powell Square. It was structurally sound when it was demolished. It fell to the wrecking ball just because it was an ugly entrance into the city.

C-M is not structurally sound (on the top of the building for sure), and is just as ugly as Powell Square (if not more).

I'd also say that part of any "stabilization" plan ought to have some sort of timeline.

Give the owner x months to raise his/her share of stabilization funds. If not delivered, proceed to the next step in the process, ultimately to a demolition and lien against the property.

Northside Neighbor wrote:Pretty basic reply to the idea of putting dollar one into the C-M building (especially now when there really is no plan for doing any publicly assisted stabilization of private buildings), and that would be, any public money put into the building would need to be matched in a significant way by the owner's own funds, or no deal.

What is the ratio of public to private $? Answering that question is why we need a real strategy. Absent same, I'd say it ought to be at least a 50/50 deal, and I would be willing to bet the owner would not take it.

We're probably talking close to a million dollars, if not at least several hundred thousand. It would be a huge cash outlay for a building today with very little market demand.

Just look at Powell Square. It was structurally sound when it was demolished. It fell to the wrecking ball just because it was an ugly entrance into the city.

C-M is not structurally sound (on the top of the building for sure), and is just as ugly as Powell Square (if not more).

I'd also say that part of any "stabilization" plan ought to have some sort of timeline.

Give the owner x months to raise his/her share of stabilization funds. If not delivered, proceed to the next step in the process, ultimately to a demolition and lien against the property.

Offering the demolition of Powell Square as a precedent for razing the Crunden-Martin building will find you few sympathetic ears here. Most argued that was a senseless mistake, and to continue to do the same for another significant building in the same neighborhood would be the very definition of insanity.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, though few would disagree with you re: the Powell Square building in it's final state. Powell, however, was a sturdy husk that could rather easily be beautified; in fact it very nearly was. Demolition 'because it was ugly' was incredibly short-sighted. And I'd argue the hole in the landscape that exists there now is at least equally as ugly today.

As regards C-M, many people have paid significant amounts of money to have homes, offices, and/or retail in similarly 'ugly' industrial buildings both nearby in St. Louis and in other parts of the US. It's got great location and loft-potential going for it once financing can be found to perform a renovation similar to other old warehouses in the area. Would such a renovation be expensive? Of course, but that's why there local, state, and federal funds already in place to help to defray those expenses. I think you seriously underestimate the potential market demand of a rehabbed C-M, but even if you're right and I'm wrong the better bet is to let it sit until the demand for it (or at least a suitable replacement) is there.

For decades the city trumpeted demolition as the way to a better and brighter future (as did many other cities around the country). Now with the benefit of hindsight it seems apparent that clear-cutting buildings because they're not contributing right now is short-sighted and ultimately detrimental to growth and stability of a neighborhood or a city in the long-term. It's far better to stabilize and mothball a building until it can be reused again.

-RBB

Northside Neighbor wrote:", but whatever."

Maybe his fellow alum, Twitter gazillionaire Jack Dorsey, will be the DuBourg benefactor then? It would be nice if someone would adopt the school similarly to how the Drurys have bankrolled improvements at SLUH and the Bommaritos at St. Mary's.

When it comes to net worth, the Drurys and Bommaritos are pikers compared to Jack Dorsey or Rex Sinquefield.

I don't think Dorsey can cash in until after Twitter hits their IPO. But yeah... Anyway, it appears Jack is only worth ~$1.1B (at least as of March 2013). On the other hand, Sinquefield hasn't disclosed his net worth but denies being a billionaire.

BTW, interesting Bloomberg article how Rex uses his riches to steamroll the state legislature.

For decades the city trumpeted demolition as the way to a better and brighter future (as did many other cities around the country). Now with the benefit of hindsight it seems apparent that clear-cutting buildings because they're not contributing right now is short-sighted and ultimately detrimental to growth and stability of a neighborhood or a city in the long-term. It's far better to stabilize and mothball a building until it can be reused again.

This discussion just went hyperbolic. Demolishing C-M is not "clear-cutting buildings". Mass demolition for interstate highway construction? *That* was clear-cutting of buildings.

Offering the demolition of Powell Square as a precedent for razing the Crunden-Martin building will find you few sympathetic ears here. Most argued that was a senseless mistake, and to continue to do the same for another significant building in the same neighborhood would be the very definition of insanity.

Not offering it as precedent or rationale, just as an important reference point in the discussion. The city's position on Powell Square, if memory serves, was, basically, that the building had sat abandoned for umpteen years and it was long overdue that something be done to remove the obvious eyesore. (Remember that idea about timelines? It's not good to sit in a constant state of rot.)

I think you seriously underestimate the potential market demand of a rehabbed C-M, but even if you're right and I'm wrong the better bet is to let it sit until the demand for it (or at least a suitable replacement) is there.

If there is substantial market demand/value for this building, then why is it in the state it's in? How about I say I think you are substantially *overestimating* the market demand for the building? If anything, I would say the facts more back up my position than yours given that the area is largely vacant with no activity. All you hear from developers these days is how hard it is to get condo deals financed anywhere, let alone in darkened, no-man's lands, sandwiched between two interstates and a flood wall.

And when you talk about indefinite hold on intervention/demolition, that's fine. Until a brick falls off the building and lands on a car or someone's head. That would be uncivilized. And possibly someone could hold the city responsible for allowing the wretched hulk to perch a ten story threat next to a public sidewalk.

Northside Neighbor wrote:

For decades the city trumpeted demolition as the way to a better and brighter future (as did many other cities around the country). Now with the benefit of hindsight it seems apparent that clear-cutting buildings because they're not contributing right now is short-sighted and ultimately detrimental to growth and stability of a neighborhood or a city in the long-term. It's far better to stabilize and mothball a building until it can be reused again.

This discussion just went hyperbolic. Demolishing C-M is not "clear-cutting buildings". Mass demolition for interstate highway construction? That was real life clear-cutting of buildings.

Clear-cutting isn't the intent; it's the result. Nobody intended for blocks of north city to become urban prairie, yet they are. In, or at least near, downtown, entire blocks have been cleared for what today is surface parking.

Northside Neighbor wrote:

Offering the demolition of Powell Square as a precedent for razing the Crunden-Martin building will find you few sympathetic ears here. Most argued that was a senseless mistake, and to continue to do the same for another significant building in the same neighborhood would be the very definition of insanity.

Not offering it as precedent or rationale, just as an important reference point in the discussion. The city's position of PS, if I recall correctly, was, basically, that it had sat abandoned for umpteen years and something had to be done to remove the obvious eyesore.

It is an important reference point, absolutely. Many fear C-M meeting the same fate, and feel the city's rationale to be short-sighted. You asked "Re: The Crunden Martin Building? Why??" That (and the Cupples building) is why. Do something now because demolition, even of a building with some damage is not only not the only option, it's not even the best or the cheapest option. In their eyes the thinking needs to change; hence the movement to do something about it.

Northside Neighbor wrote:

I think you seriously underestimate the potential market demand of a rehabbed C-M, but even if you're right and I'm wrong the better bet is to let it sit until the demand for it (or at least a suitable replacement) is there.

If there was substantial market demand/value for this building, then why is it in the state its in? How about I say I think *you* are substantially overestimating the market demand for the building? If anything, I would say the facts more back up my position than yours given that the area is largely vacant with no activity. All you hear from developers these days is how hard it is to get condo deals financed.

Buildings along Washington Avenue sat unappreciated, underused, and under-maintained for years before anyone did anything with them. The homes and building surrounding Lafayette Square were considered blighted eyesores that needed to be knocked down until that area was rebuilt. Now they're among the two most desirable spots in the city. Demand changes. It's best to hold on to a building that most would still argue is an asset to the city until it can be re-used. But do your point re: developers, I'll counter with the Arcade-Wright building, the Millennium Center, The Alexa, The Laurel, and many others that show funds can be found even if it takes a while. There's a lot of demand for residential in the general vicinity, actually, and financing is being sourced for many projects.

Northside Neighbor wrote:And when you talk about indefinite hold on intervention/demolition, that's fine. Until a brick falls off the building and lands on a car or someone's head. That would be uncivilized. And possibly someone could hold the city responsible for allowing the wretched hulk to perch a ten story threat next to a public sidewalk.

Hence the need to invest in stabilization rather than waiting for it to degrade to the point where an expensive demolition that furthers the decline of the built environment is necessary.

-RBB

rbb - I'd say we're in general agreement.

Overall, I agree with you. It's a good thing to preserve historic buildings. I live in the city in a historic building. My preference is to preserve historic buildings and neighborhoods.

However, this thread is about a larger topic: setting priorities for strategic interventions to stabilize vacant buildings. The Crunden Martin has been compromised and is now a threat to public safety. There is no program on the books in St. Louis for stabilizing threatened, privately-owned historic buildings. Meanwhile, the city has thousands of vacant buildings, all fitting somewhere on a continuum of importance/historic significance.

The history of preservation in St. Louis, especially for the past 20 years or so, has been to go from one crisis to the next. That's not effective. The results speak for themselves. The challenge I am presenting is that we need to stop, take a breath, come up with some workable ideas, raise some money, then start taking measured action.

Crunden Martin may or may not survive. Or, it might survive, and then end up low on a priority list of a vetted public preservation/stabilization plan.

Look at it another way. An effort to preserve vacant buildings needs to raise a lot of money. It will be a lot easier to raise those funds with a sound, vetted, publicly supported plan, than to keep on in the same old, ad hoc, one-crisis-to-the-next way of doing things that we've seen for far too long in St. Louis. If anything, *that's* what's insane: to keep doing things the same way and expect different results.

It's easy to cite vacant buildings that need stabilization. It's a lot harder to actually do it.

We should do it. But let's do it smart.