I too am very pleased to see this go.
Bummer. Always thought it could've made a cool multipurpose skatepark + <<fill in the blank>>.
- 1,642
Remember, there is money in the demolition business. I bet the demolition companies are out there all the time lobbying and searching for something to tear down next. Unfortunately, it's proven to be a very lucrative business in St. Louis. In some former neighborhoods demolition is one of the few economic activities going on. I'm sure there are plenty of kickbacks and payoffs and favors in their dealings with the city along the way too. I'm sure we'd be shocked if we knew. See ya Powell Square.
Yes, every great city should be judged by its appearance from a highway ramp.arch city wrote:Awesome!! Another leap forward St. Louis.topher wrote:Facebook tells me via Flickr that Powell Square is being demolished RIGHT NOW.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doskrab/83 ... hotostream
This structure, in my opinion, was a symbol of all of the negative stereotypes and perceptions some people/visitors tend to have of St. Louis. To be smack dab on the highway interchanges, it greeted them.
Now the Gateway Arch can grab their full attention.
I get it...a lot of people pass this site on a daily basis. But, if anything, a vacant lot spreads the same message as a vacant building: that the land isn't valuable (or, more than likely, has been hopelessly devalued by the presence of said highway).
Yet the difference is that the building as it stood could have been rehabilitated and turned into something truly positive. With such a low value attached to the land as it is, this site will likely end up as a billboard, or possibly a paved lot. I hope I'm wrong.
There are a multitude of "too far gone" or "ugly" vacant buildings that have been rescued from the brink (some of them--gasp--highway visible too!) that will continue to add character to our city...the Powell Square building could have been another. It won't be saved, but the last thing I expect to see is people cheering it on. Weird.
stldotage wrote:Yes, every great city should be judged by its appearance from a highway ramp.
I get it...a lot of people pass this site on a daily basis. But, if anything, a vacant lot spreads the same message as a vacant building: that the land isn't valuable (or, more than likely, has been hopelessly devalued by the presence of said highway).
Yet the difference is that the building as it stood could have been rehabilitated and turned into something truly positive. With such a low value attached to the land as it is, this site will likely end up as a billboard, or possibly a paved lot. I hope I'm wrong.
There are a multitude of "too far gone" or "ugly" vacant buildings that have been rescued from the brink (some of them--gasp--highway visible too!) that will continue to add character to our city...the Powell Square building could have been another. It won't be saved, but the last thing I expect to see is people cheering it on. Weird.
Yeah, perhaps a great city shouldn't be judged by its appearance from a highway, but how long has it been since St. Louis has been considered a "great city" in the complete sense of the term. Most dangerous! Most drunkest! One of the fattest cities! Most polluted! One of the most violent cities in the world! One of the most abandoned! Most racially divided! Meth Capital etc. etc!
I'm sorry, but St. Louis certainly didn't need a "lingering billboard" to underscore some of the issues and perceptions that St. Louis - although improving - continues to grapple with.
I get your point too, but this building wasn't the Chemical, Arcade, or Jefferson Arms. It wasn't even the Pevely Building. It was an abandoned graffti-covered billboard with numerous failed proposals for redevelopment. Over the years, I had seen some awesome proposals for Powell Square, and had hoped one would come through, but none came to fruition. Yet the shell of a building became more and more of a monstrosity as the years went by. Perhaps sentimental to some, as I see it, this is no major loss.
Ultimately, to me, it seems as if it is a double-edged sword. It's bad either way you slice it. You'd take a graffti-ridden building with little to no hope of redevelopment, I'll take the vacant lot. Just as there have been many long-abandoned structures around St. Louis redeveloped - the same can be said for vacant lots.
- 8,905
stldotage wrote:
Yes, every great city should be judged by its appearance from a highway ramp.
There are a multitude of "too far gone" or "ugly" vacant buildings that have been rescued from the brink (some of them--gasp--highway visible too!) that will continue to add character to our city...the Powell Square building could have been another. It won't be saved, but the last thing I expect to see is people cheering it on. Weird.
How can you NOT cheer this? What significance did this building have? What context did it provide to the urban fabric? What historical significance? What architectural significance? If there is something I'm missing here please educate me.
I consider myself a preservationist but I'm not mourning (no pun intended) a skeleton of a building that is a massive eyesore on the doorstep of our beautiful region.
- 277
Then you're not a preservationist.I consider myself a preservationist but I'm not mourning (no pun intended) a skeleton of a building that is a massive eyesore on the doorstep to our region.
I want to know (and this will really only be answered in the coming years), was the presence of this particular building a hindrance to the development of this site?
I agree with Arch City in that I was definitely rooting for this building to have been developed into something worthwhile. But it didn't turn out that way, after several propositions.
So time will tell...was the building just too much to deal with? Now that the hand has been played, I hope that's right...I hope that what replaces it has lasers, also.
I'm sure he can speak for himself (moorlander), but I think that is very unfair of you to say.captainjackass wrote:Then you're not a preservationist.I consider myself a preservationist but I'm not mourning (no pun intended) a skeleton of a building that is a massive eyesore on the doorstep to our region.
Not trying to attack you, but what is the definition of a preservationist? I'm sure they are not required to save all old buildings in the world. What qualifying barometer exists for preservationists?
Even preservationists must be selective in what they feel is significant, preservable and historic architecture. All preservationists don't think alike - just like all black people nor all white people think alike. Yes, I'm being a smart@ to drive home the point.
I'm not a die-hard preservationist, obsessively emotionalizing over doomed buildings, but I wrote Slay in support of keeping the AAA building on Lindell from being destroyed. However, for different reasons, I was in Biondi's corner in regards to the Pevely building. (Fighting....off....incoming....missiles)
Different strokes. This is why people create different clubs and organizations that essentially do the same thing. There's a difference in philosophy.
1) The MRB has topped out. 2) Boone and Blanchette bridges are under construction - to be finished within 23 short months. 3)The Poplar Street Bridge needs to be replaced - heck the thing is nearing 50 years old. INTRODUCING: the location for the Missouri-side approach of the "New - New Mississippi River Bridge" (10 lanes in each direction) to open in spring 2036.
- 277
You and I have a different definition of "preservationist." I graduated with a degree in preservation, and in my experience in the field, a preservationist should draw their line at the furthest point possible...usually past feasibility.I'm sure he can speak for himself (moorlander), but I think that is very unfair of you to say.
Not trying to attack you, but what is the definition of a preservationist? I'm sure they are not required to save all old buildings in the world. What qualifying barometer exists for preservationists?
Even preservationists must be selective in what they feel is significant, preservable and historic architecture. All preservationists don't think alike - just like all black people nor all white people think alike. Yes, I'm being a smart@ to drive home the point.
I'm not a die-hard preservationist, obsessively emotionalizing over doomed buildings, but I wrote Slay in support of keeping the AAA building on Lindell from being destroyed. However, for different reasons, I was in Biondi's corner in regards to the Pevely building. (Fighting....off....incoming....missiles)
Different strokes. This is why people create different clubs and organizations that essentially do the same thing. There's a difference in philosophy.
In my opinion, a preservationist sets their "significance" meter to include all historic buildings, not just ones of popular significance. Because someone has to speak up for the vernacular buildings, which is St. Louis' shining grace.
So, saying someone isn't a preservationist isn't at all a dig. I'm not a preservationist much of the time. Most of us aren't. I don't mind being a pragmatist this time, hoping that something comes out of this that will help anchor the neighborhood.
But this building was significant, in my opinion.
- 1,320
I'm not happy to see it go. It didn't cover itself in graffiti. Still, I wouldn't chain myself to it to hold back the bulldozers, either.
It's not about the building itself. Yes, it had become an eyesore and embarrassment. But for the building's fans, what Powell Square held was a hope for density just south of the arch grounds... a density equal to or greater than Laclede's Landing... a walkable neighborhood of infill amidst massive and repurposed industrial remains of a past century. The likelihood of such a vision is now considerably diminished. That neighborhood will now resemble the rest of Mill Creek Valley.
We seem to be seeing a lot of "surprise" demolitions recently—Bohemian Hill, 13th Street, Powell Square. Anyone have an explanation?
It's not about the building itself. Yes, it had become an eyesore and embarrassment. But for the building's fans, what Powell Square held was a hope for density just south of the arch grounds... a density equal to or greater than Laclede's Landing... a walkable neighborhood of infill amidst massive and repurposed industrial remains of a past century. The likelihood of such a vision is now considerably diminished. That neighborhood will now resemble the rest of Mill Creek Valley.
We seem to be seeing a lot of "surprise" demolitions recently—Bohemian Hill, 13th Street, Powell Square. Anyone have an explanation?
I, too, could never celebrate the demolition of a reusable brick building in Saint Louis. So what if it stood vacant for another 10 years. It would still be worth it if someone came along and gave it another lease of life in say 2023. I just don't get this impatient stance on old buildings. Short-sighted demolitions, among other inanities, is how we got here in the first place.
Wait for judgement till we see what replaces it... and as I understand there is a plan. I have been told its "cool" by a source I trust, but no nothing beyond that.
I am mixed on the actual demo, it could have been something nice, but too many years of exposure on that concrete probably made redevelopment a difficult proposition.
Also, lets face it, it was not really nicely detailed, it was big and imposing and hung over the highway, and there is something cool about that, but as far as saving history goes, we have much better buildings all over the city that are under threat and losing Hodgen last year was a much greater loss.
I am mixed on the actual demo, it could have been something nice, but too many years of exposure on that concrete probably made redevelopment a difficult proposition.
Also, lets face it, it was not really nicely detailed, it was big and imposing and hung over the highway, and there is something cool about that, but as far as saving history goes, we have much better buildings all over the city that are under threat and losing Hodgen last year was a much greater loss.
- 3,757
I know this question has been asked before, but can anyone tell me what the history of
Powell Square is? What was it originally built for, used for over
it's existance and why was it abandoned?
Thanks in advance!
Powell Square is? What was it originally built for, used for over
it's existance and why was it abandoned?
Thanks in advance!
No disrespect, so are you a pragmatist or a preservationist? Or are you a pragmatic preservationistcaptainjackass wrote:So, saying someone isn't a preservationist isn't at all a dig. I'm not a preservationist much of the time. Most of us aren't. I don't mind being a pragmatist this time, hoping that something comes out of this that will help anchor the neighborhood.
But this building was significant, in my opinion.
And what was your beef again? Why would you attack someone who made a pragmatic assessment about the death of Powell Square just as you?
The problem in St. Louis is that there are too many buildings sitting empty, unused and some them don't deserve a dime of reinvestment. There are some buildings that simply need to be blown to smithereens.imran wrote:I, too, could never celebrate the demolition of a reusable brick building in Saint Louis. So what if it stood vacant for another 10 years. It would still be worth it if someone came along and gave it another lease of life in say 2023. I just don't get this impatient stance on old buildings. Short-sighted demolitions, among other inanities, is how we got here in the first place.
Further, when (re)development in St. Louis was soaring prior to the recession, this building sat empty. Despite all of the fancy pants websites and ideas for the area, this building sat empty, desolate and slowly became a hulking monstrosity looming over one of America's most traveled highway interchanges. The aura it has exuded to travelers passing through should not be underestimated.
Although the same could be said about other yet-to-be redeveloped buildings downtown, Powell Square had a prominent location which should have hastened its redevelopment - especially with the existence of all kinds of creative tax credits in place. The others - Arcade, Jefferson Arms, Chemical - simply have more architectural and historic value and should sit as long as necessary.
Truth is, Powell Square had some potential and if those who cared could have founded a campaign to tastefully board-up the windows and remove the graffiti, I suppose there would be less cheer-leading by those of us who are grateful that the shock of this horrid building will no longer sting our eyes and make us gasp in train smoke as we navigate of that area.
Downtown office workers are likely pleased that they can look out of their windows and see one less ruin poking out of the landscape.
- 277
I was trying to make the point that I wasn't attacking anyone about being a preservationist...merely pointing out that in my experience, a preservationist would not be glad to see a building torn down. Doesn't mean it made sense to preserve this building, only that it's more a matter of pragmatism.No disrespect, so are you a pragmatist or a preservationist? Or are you a pragmatic preservationist
And what was your beef again? Why would you attack someone who made a pragmatic assessment about the death of Powell Square just as you?
The problem in St. Louis is that there are too many buildings sitting empty, unused and some them don't deserve a dime of reinvestment. There are some buildings that simply need to be blown to smithereens.
So if a group of "preservationists" went around the city, mothballing vacant building with plywood and nails, would you find something else to argue about?Truth is, Powell Square had some potential and if those who cared could have founded a campaign to tastefully board-up the windows and remove the graffiti, I suppose there would be less cheer-leading by those of us who are grateful that this building will no longer sting our eyes and make us gasp in train smoke as we navigate that area.
Well, maybe. It depends on the building.captainjackass wrote:So if a group of "preservationists" went around the city, mothballing vacant building with plywood and nails, would you find something else to argue about?
Seriously, I respect your opinion, but disagree.
- 277
Likewise.Seriously, I respect your opinion, but disagree.
So, the demo is the work of the city, and the current owner will be tabbed for the demo. I wonder when the owner will play his hand?
- 8,155
I hope you are right, but a Channel 4 report from last night indicated the City condemned and demoed the building and is adding the costs to the tax bill... if its not paid, the city may take over the property. Didn't sound like there was any plan but who knows.beer city wrote:Wait for judgement till we see what replaces it... and as I understand there is a plan. I have been told its "cool" by a source I trust, but no nothing beyond that.
- 3,235
Know something? Maybe a local media outlet should investigate.leeharveyawesome wrote:Remember, there is money in the demolition business. I bet the demolition companies are out there all the time lobbying and searching for something to tear down next. Unfortunately, it's proven to be a very lucrative business in St. Louis. In some former neighborhoods demolition is one of the few economic activities going on. I'm sure there are plenty of kickbacks and payoffs and favors in their dealings with the city along the way too. I'm sure we'd be shocked if we knew. See ya Powell Square.
- 2,928
Amen. Great post. Of all the buildings to direct effort towards preservation, Powell Square was low on the list. In fact...arch city wrote:The problem in St. Louis is that there are too many buildings sitting empty, unused and some them don't deserve a dime of reinvestment. There are some buildings that simply need to be blown to smithereens...imran wrote:I, too, could never celebrate the demolition of a reusable brick building in Saint Louis. So what if it stood vacant for another 10 years. It would still be worth it if someone came along and gave it another lease of life in say 2023. I just don't get this impatient stance on old buildings. Short-sighted demolitions, among other inanities, is how we got here in the first place.
(Rant) Good riddance to the remains of Powell Square. Its blighted skeleton corpse has been a black eye of blight on STL for decades.
It was a highway sign in itself:
“Welcome to STL – Enjoy this giant disaster welcoming you to our City! Don’t look at the giant Gateway Arch across from you; look at the waste that is me, the foundational remains of what was once Powell Square! I’m covered in graffiti, have no walls, and look like I was relocated to STL from Dresden after the firebombing! I demonstrate that funding and half-measures on redevelopment still take place! Abandon all hope ye who enter here!”
Yeah, it sucks that it wasn’t constructively rehabbed, that it could have been so much more than it was. But, it wasn’t funded, it wasn’t rehabbed, and it wasn’t going to be. Those old plans for artists’ lofts? Weren’t gonna happen. We’ve got them at the Leather Trades and Metropolitan Buildings already, and more coming soon to the Arcade-Wright.
What is probably being sought for part of the site is the expansion of the Poplar Street Bridge. Reasoning: how exactly was that new entrance from northbound I-55 supposed to get onto the bridge with Powell Square’s remains in the way? The existing turn onto the PSB from I-55 is in much need of change as it is, let alone a second ramp.
If the money and will really existed to save it, then it would have. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the buildings next door to Powell Square, the ones to the south, the ones that still have walls and attached red bricks, are now more attractive to redevelopment, now that the giant eyesore and disgusting mess that was Powell Square’s skeleton is gone.
Realize: This isn’t the destruction of the entire Choteau’s Landing. It’s just the demo of the one giant skeletal building that was in so much disarray that it prohibited the constructive redevelopment of the rest of Choteau’s Landing. And with this demo, hopefully work can start on the rest of it.
How long should STL wait to redevelop it? I’m pretty sure that it was an abandoned mess way back when Clark Griswold drove the family truckster across the PSB singing Old Man River.
Quid pro quo: That building was awful. Good riddance. If we’re going to truly save anything from Powell Square, save what little bricks were left on the frame. (end rant)
- 10K
If the city can just come in, condemn a building, tear it down and then bill the owner, why wasn't this done years ago?
- 11K
^ We need not be one or the other. I'm generally a preservationist, but probably a pragmatist in many cities. The problem in St. Louis is that we often demo to create parking or a vacant lot, or maybe some really awful development. IF Pevely were to be demo'd for a very urban, dense development - it would be a tough choice. I don't like seeing Powell demo'd because it's very likely going to be a vacant lot.
Do you have a source for this? Or are you just making assumptions? From most of what I've read this building was actually going to be the centerpiece of a Chouteau's Landing redevelopment. Has someone else proposed a redevelopment that requires the demolition of Powell Square?gone corporate wrote: it prohibited the constructive redevelopment of the rest of Choteau’s Landing
A building's aesthetic value really has no relation to its economic value to the city/neighborhood.gone corporate wrote:That building was awful. Good riddance.
100 North Tucker was also awful. It's being redeveloped into a Law School. St. Louis Centre was ugly and outdated. Instead of being torn down so that conventioners didn't get the wrong idea about St. Louis, it was mothballed until it could be turned into restaurants, boutiques, and a movie theater. The Cupples Station buildings are right next to the highway and were derelict for years. Do you think St. Louis would be better off if those passers-by had seen a parking lot instead of boarded up vacant warehouses? Would that have added more value than having them available for redevelopment? The Pet/Sverdrup/Pointe 400 Building is really ugly and right next to the highway, and yet succeeded in being converted into 118 apartments.
The point is, or rather Realize: Demolition should only be a last resort that is justified only by proposed, imminent new development or public safety, and only then if stabilization of the building has been studied and ruled out.