ST. LOUIS • Firefighters were battling a large blaze at an abandoned building near the riverfront south of the Arch grounds at midday today.

A six-story building that's part of the old Crunden Martin Manufacturing Co. complex on South Second Street began burning before noon. Firefighters were called the building with the report of a fire and an explosion.

Firefighters tried to attack the fire in the top floors of the building from the outside, but retreated and were shooting water on the blaze from several ladder trucks shortly after noon.

Several blocks around the building were cordoned off as firefighters took on the three-alarm blaze in the old brick building.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... z1fyDBT1dD

Were there any development plans for this building or the complex?

Not trying to blame the homeless, but the article did say that witnesses saw homeless people fleeing from the building. Apparently they stay there to keep warm. Maybe somebody started a fire and it got out of hand.

Just speculation on my part, though, and the fire did start in the upper floors.

Apparently the building across the sky bridge from the damaged building is occupied by a business. I didn't know that.

matguy70 wrote:I hated to see this happen to this historic structure. Maybe it will push some rehab development here though... let's hope.

More likely, it will serve as a reason for demolition. Which really, really sucks. What happened to Chivvis and their grand plans?!

It’s sad every time we lose one of these. If there were an army of developers ready to build on the newly vacant site it would be a different story. Heaven knows how long the parcel will remain vacant, and the buckling wall does not leave the city with a lot of choice except demo.

Over the years there has had to be dozens of fires and subsequent demos due to the homeless trying to warm themselves.

The 2 I would love to have back-

The Fresh Building north of the landing.
The building at the corner of Washington and tucker.

There was a guy commenting in another blog -- Greg G was his handle -- who said he owned some buildings on Chouteau's Landing, directly south of the Arch on First Street. So not the Crunden-Martin building, I guess, but right next to it...the Servco building probably. I'd like to hear his take on all of this and see what plans, if any, he has for his buildings.

His original comments on City+Arch+River (it's not on the website now, but I had jotted it down at the time in hopes of talking to/interviewing him): "As the owner of the buildings directly south of the Arch on First street, I can tell you I look forward to seeing if the competition can help tie in the arch grounds to the Chouteau's Landing area to the south. I truly hope you all consider the replacement of the highway with a boulevard as a major component of this project, without it you're only giving a face lift to a project that has minimal connectivity to the city around it and will just continue to be that way."

And his comments from two articles on STL Rising:

2/24/09 Chouteau's Landing -- Connections Waiting To Happen:

2/25/09 - "Park Into the City" -- an approach for Chouteau's Landing?

He seems genuinely interested in the revivial of Chouteau's Landing...maybe he'll be the trailblazer there (with some helpful tips and suggestions from NextSTL, of course). Where are you Greg G? Come talk to us!

For reference, here's the Servco building(s) in the front in relation to Crunden-Martin:

so what's the condition of the Crunden Martin building? after the first fire Michael Allen had commented that it was salvageable, but i haven't heard anything since the fire rekindled on... what day was it, friday?

With the demo of Cupples 7 behind us, the call is on for more to be done to save historic buildings from demolition. The news is reporting that "preservationists have turned their attention to the Crunden Martin Building". The question is, why?

The top of the building was heavily damaged about a year ago in a fire. The building has been exposed to the elements ever since. First question, what has the owner done to repair the building? Answer: nothing. Did he have insurance? Who knows.

But back to the question.

McGowan estimated it would have taken a $million to put a new roof on Cupples 7. Gotta figure the cost would be the same or more for Crunden Martin. Where does that kind of money come from?

And if someone miraculously finds a million dollars to invest in what is basically a vacant, abandoned building, why should it go there?

Why not the Clemens House? Or the kickstarter campaign in Old North? Or Old St. Mary's Hospital? Or any number of smaller, neighborhood buildings needing help?

How do we know efforts to save Crunden Martin don't wind up literally going down a rat hole? One reason so little stabilization happens prior to rehab is that there's no certainty buildings will ever be reused.

It's a much better investment to stabilize buildings with likely reuse than fixing the ones people may love but have little chance for rehabilitation.

I don't think your points are unfair, but I think it's still worth saving.

A million or so is relative chump change in the development world. And once you lose a building it's gone forever. You might think re-using that building is unlikely now, but in 5 years, who knows? A lot can change quickly.

That building to me looks like once that could have a lot of uses. I also don't believe it's that unlikely to be re-used in the first place. As downtown continues to grow, and with Arch grounds getting new life, I see no reason we can't see developmental growth both North and South on the riverfront.

That whole area from the riverfront to 7th and I-64 south to about Park is really prime for development in my opinion. There is already some good and increasing office space. There should be (but unfortunately is not) a lot more restaurants and bars. And I see no reason why residential couldn't follow.

But there's only so much development money to go around, and right now that's happening north of there in downtown (and I can't complain about that). But as downtown repopulates, I expect to see the development shift both north and south. And this building could easily be a part of that.

Stabilization funds should be treated as loans -not grants - with cross-collateral pledges of assets (not the subject property) as security, backed up by personal guarantees. Part or all of stabilization funds should be re-payed upon closing of construction financing. If current private owners are unwilling/unable to make such repayment commitments, alternative ownership should be sought prior to spending stabilization funds. Private developers/investors should not profit as a result of publicly funded stabilization dollars.

That's an easy one.

1) There's no commitment for private financing.
2) There's no city approved plan/policy for prioritizing the stabilization of abandoned buildings.

If the developer is NOT making a profit from making the commitment to rehab a building then why should that person even consider doing it.

Good question. They wouldn't. That's why these discussions are so difficult.

McGowan admitted in the media that Cupples 7 was never really planned for rehab - it was already too far gone. They sort of saw it as a throwaway.

Preservationists now say they must help raise funds for preservation. That's a good idea. If it were their money at risk, then they'd be able to set the standards.

If public money is at risk, then taxpayers should have a voice in setting policy/priorities.

Some in the public might say the money is better spent clearing dangerous, abandoned buildings in neighborhoods than spending a million or more stabilizing one abandoned building like Crunden Martin.

There needs to be a big conversation around this issue, and so far, that hasn't happened. To say that "we are not doing enough" to preserve abandoned buildings sounds good, but doesn't change anything.

There needs to be policy, funding, and shared risk/reward.

That's not quite accurate. Word on the street is that preservationists have now set their attention on Crunden-Martin. That's the problem. Once more, we jump into ad hoc reaction mode.

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).

Going from one demolition crisis to the next has been the M.O. for St. Louis preservation efforts for decades. It's a hopeless, frustrating battle.

(And, not to be too nitpicky here, but the correct name is "Crunden-Martin", not "Crumden-Martin".)

Well, the word coming from Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford, as reported in the news over the past couple of days in reaction to the fallout over Cupples 7, is that any city-funded effort to stabilize abandoned buildings will require a commitment of private investment as part of the equation.

That sounds like, regardless the priorities of preservationists for saving whatever threatened building may be out there, the city is looking to create a cogent, business-like plan for these matters.

So the opening is there for preservationists to push for a long range plan for stabilizing threatened buildings, regardless of the short term fate of Crunden-Martin. That sounds like an open invitation to preservationists to sit down at the table and begin working on ideas/plans/programs, etc.

Crunden-Martin or no Crunden-Martin.