urbanSTL

^ Yes. So many examples of buildings being vacant for decades and brought back to life. Why do we refuse to learn this lesson? I ask again, what if St. Louis demolished every building that sat vacant for 10yrs? 5yrs? Just imagine the loss.

I suspect that if the Chouteau's Landing is meant to be a hotbed of arts and entertainment, the vacant lot will secure a developer.

In the meantime, the building had to go. Thanks to whoever was responsible for getting the demo permits and other permissions to make it happen. He and/or she deserve(s) a pay raise.

It shows that the city is trying to do something improve its image. It also demonstrates that doing business in the city and city decisions don't have to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Remember this is partly why city voters voted to reduce the Board of Aldermen/women. There is too much bureaucracy. When the downsizing transition happens, I expect some tomfoolery early on, but don't be surprised by more "gangster" moves like this by the city in the future. Government efficiency and taking control of St. Louis' image are a couple of keys to help St. Louis thrive.

MattnSTL wrote:You can't possibly be serious. You're just having a good laugh because that's all you can do when such a stupid decision is made, right?

Let's be realistic for a moment. The majority of development in St. Louis these days is spurred by renovation of existing buildings. We can't just demolish our way out of problems. I spent quite a bit of time in Powell Square. While it certainly had it's problems, it was still a sound structure. A renovation would not have been easy to finance, but speaking from professional experience, no building really is easy. Everyone would do it if it were easy. This lot will be vacant for 15-20 years, if not forever now based on it's location. I hope I am wrong, but Powell Square was realistically our only hope for a building on the subject lot.

I don't think the decision was stupid. I support the decision, and yes I am happy. Do you all really think the powers-that-be at City Hall woke up Thursday and said, "Let's go have some fun, bring out the demo equipment. Let's get this party started!" I don't think so.

I am sure they thought about the probabilities, consequences, repercussions and allowed the building years of "grace" prior to demolition. The demolition probably had been planned and contemplated for months - if not years.

Let's face it, Powell Square didn't beat the clock.

And yes, it might take 15-20 years to fill the site's vacant lot. It's been almost that long (not really) for the Ballpark Village and the Bottle District so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

I'm more optistimistic by nature and I think that as downtown, Ballpark Village and Cupples Station flourish, the excitement will spill over to Chouteau's Landing.

I wonder if Powell Square is the first in a series of demos the city is planning in the area.

arch city wrote:I suspect that if the Chouteau's Landing is meant to be a hotbed of arts and entertainment, the vacant lot will secure a developer.

In the meantime, the building had to go. Thanks to whoever was responsible for getting the demo permits and other permissions to make it happen. He and/or she deserve(s) a pay raise.

It shows that the city is trying to do something improve its image. It also demonstrates that doing business in the city and city decisions don't have to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Remember this is partly why city voters voted to reduce the Board of Aldermen/women. There is too much bureaucracy. When the downsizing transition happens, I expect some tomfoolery early on, but don't be surprised by more "gangster" moves like this by the city in the future. Government efficiency and taking control of St. Louis' image are a couple of keys to help St. Louis thrive.

So misguided IMO. So the idea is "don't worry, if development's going to happen then something great will be built on this vacant lot." That doesn't seem like a bet that, well, ever, turned out well in St. Louis. The reference to the Board of Aldermen is a real non sequitur.

Alex Ihnen wrote:So misguided IMO. So the idea is "don't worry, if development's going to happen then something great will be built on this vacant lot." That doesn't seem like a bet that, well, ever, turned out well in St. Louis. The reference to the Board of Aldermen is a real non sequitur.

IMO, I think you and some others here are the misguided ones. Further, don't twist my words to suit your disappointments with this demolition. You know that is not what I said. I think I have been very clear about my position and will not apologize for it.

The vacant lot won over the moribund structure, guys. It's really simple. The City of St. Louis won. Preservationists who cared enough unfortunately lost this one. Chalk it up and move on to save the next building. This one is a wrap. Not to antagonize, but it's the truth.

Further, the logic of my reference to the Board of Aldermen/women is that city officials sometimes have to make hard decisions for the betterment of the community without all of the public haggling and intense protracted debating. That is why they are elected. The Pevely debate, in my opinion, was a bureaucratic nightmare that nearly caused a riot in the streets of St. Louis.

To his credit, the mayor and some city officials stepped up with the AAA/CVS debate. The mayor stepped up with support in regards to saving the flying saucer building. Although there have been numerous losses, some city officials stepped in to block numerous demolitions across the city including the last-standing dilapidated Cupples Station building. The city stepped in to block the demolition of 1107 Olive; and historic buildings in the CORTEX area have been saved by the city/developers for reuse.

You might not like every decision elected officials make, but that is what they are charged to do at times - make hard decisions. If you don't like what they are doing, vote the bums out next time. Better yet, run for office. It's that simple. Now was that made better for you to understand, Alex?

The city doesn't have to hold public hearings on every move it makes.

I made it very clear in my initial reply that I would have preferred to see Powell Square redeveloped. However, I am also a realist who realizes that the building was putting an ugly stain on St. Louis and no developers stepped up in time.

St. Louis improving its image is of an urgent matter. As you (and others) see those of us who are happy to see this building demolished as "misguided"....we could have the same sentiments about you guys in regards to this demolition.

You and others are entitled to your opinions. So agree with me and others or not, the city did the right thing. And it was long overdue. Go St. Louis!

wabash wrote: If the people who oversaw and signed off on this destruction are so deliberative and considerate, what is their thought process? Is there a reason for this? Because it looks a bit like senseless, arbitrary destruction. If they have a beautification agenda or a redevelopment plan or some transit infrastructure justification I want to hear what it is. "It's an ugly building" isn't good enough.

Ostensibly, the reason (and the only legal reason) was that it was unsound and imperiled public safety. But the remark above about the Poplar Bridge project rings true as giving an "extra push" to go ahead with tear down.

sktpbm wrote:I think the city is tearing it down to make way for the expansion of the PSB after the MRB is complete.

I looked at this, but don't think it makes sense. Powell Square was hugged to the north by a busy railroad track. That line's going no where, making the Powell Square lot accessible by the highway. Maybe it opens up ramp options from I-55...dunno.

Streetview: http://goo.gl/maps/UeySa

^ there was an inspection and finding of a public safety threat sufficient to condemn... I'm not sure how much the owner was in dispute of this but he didn't seem to fight it or take it to court.

What would have saved Powell Square?
1. Money to rehab it
2. Leadership to see it through
3. Keeping away public acrimony for the site

Its fate was sealed years ago when the windows were removed, followed by absolutely nothing happening. After the windows were removed, it pretty much lost all opportunity to attract new investors. It looked like the worst of urban decay (yes, backdrop for rap videos), and positioned right on our front door. After years of having to see it as a full black eye on STL right at our front door, enough people had it with Powell Square’s skeleton. Whether or not it had been a structurally strong skeleton, by being just a skeleton it scared off investors.

If we want to point fingers, let’s stop doing it towards each other and instead focus on the ones responsible...

Absolutely, management & ownership of this building can and should be blamed for allowing this building to become by and large untenable in this market. It’s their fault for mismanaging the property, for never progressing on the Choteau’s Landing Center for the Arts not far beyond conceptualization, for bypassing on the International Photography Hall of Fame, for stalling out on the entire development of Choteau’s Landing as it has been presented so far. No, it’s not right to lay blame on them for suffering economic hardship resultant from the real estate financing-led collapse of 2008, and I truly feel for them in comparable financial hurt effected in 2008. However, it does not allow them to simply let their holdings deteriorate as they try to right their ship, to end all proactive marketing for active real estate development, to not sell a linchpin structure within one’s footprint because of what it would look like in certain circles to do so, to allow a prominent site to fall to pieces because of prideful mismanagement.

Where is the market demand?
Where is the marketing outreach?
Where is the momentum?
Where’s the farking money?

This was not the Pevely complex. It was the skeletal remains of Powell Square. Big differences here…

What does scare me? This could be precedent for Cupples 7.

I truly wish it could have been saved before it fell too far away.
But, if no one’s going to do anything about it, then start fresh here.


Honestly… Has no one see this coming as talk surfaced of the new Poplar Street Bridge’s eastbound lane and new entrances from northbound I-55 to the PSB, potentially at-speed entrances? Where else would it be going?

My brother just told me about this and we had a similar reaction:

Brother: "You know they tore down that bombed-out building right by the Poplar? The Parker or something...
Me: "Powell Square?"
Brother: "Yeah, that one! That's a shame, place was like a landmark...though I guess it was a landmark because it was a gigantic eyesore of 'Hey, Welcome to St. Louis!'"

I'm able to genuinely get upset about Pevely, or the Century, and other buildings with great significance, and I generally don't support tearing things down because they're eyesores. But I'm sorry, this just isn't one of them. Powell Square may have been structurally sound, but the fact of the matter is that it was an embarrassment that, realistically, was not going to be redeveloped any time in near future.

shimmy wrote:My brother just told me about this and we had a similar reaction:

Brother: "You know they tore down that bombed-out building right by the Poplar? The Parker or something...
Me: "Powell Square?"
Brother: "Yeah, that one! That's a shame, place was like a landmark...though I guess it was a landmark because it was a gigantic eyesore of 'Hey, Welcome to St. Louis!'"

I'm able to genuinely get upset about Pevely, or the Century, and other buildings with great significance, and I generally don't support tearing things down because they're eyesores. But I'm sorry, this just isn't one of them. Powell Square may have been structurally sound, but the fact of the matter is that it was an embarrassment that, realistically, was not going to be redeveloped any time in near future.

I think the fact that we'll have a giant vacant lot as our front entrance is an even bigger embarrassment.

Arguable. Had a friend in from Boston last week who noticed the decrepit buildings as we crossed the river. A vacant lot probably would have gone unnoticed. I'm not saying the building should have been torn down, I'm just saying I understand why it was. And, as urbanists and preservationists, I think it's important to pick battles over buildings that really matter, not just because they exist. This just wasn't a battle worth fighting.