...but residents die from asthma.captainjackass wrote:"St. Louis...where our freeways have room to breathe."...A vacant lot probably would have gone unnoticed.
- 11K
I have mixed feelings on this demo. On the one hand, it was probably pretty structurally secure - at least by all appearances, but it's also hemmed in on four sides by I-55, two railroads, and the river. I'm guessing that's why no development had occurred. Without a massive infrastructure project to *greatly* improve both the fact and perception of access for both cars and pedestrians, it's hard to see how this particular chunk of the city can be transformed into something more than it currently is. I think that's a challenge, in general, for the entire zone between 40/64 and 44 - it's so ineptly carved up by RR's, interstate, and industrial zones. I know there was a lot of discussion of transforming PS into arts studios, but in order for that to work since artists need customers, and those customers need and clear and obvious way into the area and that interchange is such a colossal disaster. If you could just bury 55/70 between Park and Cass, it would really open up the area 
Agreed.stlgasm wrote: I think the fact that we'll have a giant vacant lot as our front entrance is an even bigger embarrassment.
Around here, its either going to be a parking lot or a one-story building. New construction can't seem to work without a garage, so its even more important to get some planning done around the Crunden-Martin site before we lose even more. I personally would be first in line to live in a new condo hugging the railroad tracks with a westward view
It's funny to hear the "it was an eyesore" crowd make their arguments for outright demolition with the counterpoint being a sparking rehab completed in the next year.
Some basic mothball investments/improvements to the property could have made this "eyesore" much more palatable to the public. A vinyl wrap even (for what?--a couple thousand bucks) could have gone a long way.
It's not always one extreme vs. the other.
Some basic mothball investments/improvements to the property could have made this "eyesore" much more palatable to the public. A vinyl wrap even (for what?--a couple thousand bucks) could have gone a long way.
It's not always one extreme vs. the other.
- 2,929
^^It's the "could have" that is the hurtful part, that this building could have avoided demo with the right investment and attention. Even doing a vinyl wrap, as you pointed out, could have been enough... if it had been planned, managed, supported, and paid for. The expression that hindsight is 20/20 can really be played out here.
For the adamant Preservationists, there are two ways the after-effects can play out:
- Turn this into momentum and outreach, preventing such demos from taking place as much going forward; or
- Inaction turns to lament and rueful stagnation.
Taking the first choice, perhaps this could be a jumping point for larger building preservation efforts:
- How does one support an owner doing minimal to progress a site?
- What measures can be taken to preserve/mothball buildings anticipating full redevelopment?
- How can broad public support be garnered towards these efforts?
- Most important: How do we pay for this?
Figure out the money, and you've got this nailed.
Idea: Start a nonprofit aimed at preservation, then "Kickstarting" for building preservation efforts.
For the adamant Preservationists, there are two ways the after-effects can play out:
- Turn this into momentum and outreach, preventing such demos from taking place as much going forward; or
- Inaction turns to lament and rueful stagnation.
Taking the first choice, perhaps this could be a jumping point for larger building preservation efforts:
- How does one support an owner doing minimal to progress a site?
- What measures can be taken to preserve/mothball buildings anticipating full redevelopment?
- How can broad public support be garnered towards these efforts?
- Most important: How do we pay for this?
Figure out the money, and you've got this nailed.
Idea: Start a nonprofit aimed at preservation, then "Kickstarting" for building preservation efforts.
- 11K
This is the tough part, as money IS being spent on this, more than $250K. The City should have a fund to help mothball and market properties. If the owner doesn't pay the demo fee then the lot likely will revert to city control and they're stuck with the bill. I don't know if the owner plans to pay the bill or not.gone corporate wrote:^^It's the "could have" that is the hurtful part, that this building could have avoided demo with the right investment and attention. Even doing a vinyl wrap, as you pointed out, could have been enough... if it had been planned, managed, supported, and paid for. The expression that hindsight is 20/20 can really be played out here.
- Most important: How do we pay for this?
Figure out the money, and you've got this nailed.
Michael Allen seemed to think it was sound:roger wyoming II wrote:^ 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.
(Michael R. Allen (@PreservationSTL) tweeted at 10:02 PM on Tue, Jan 08, 2013:
Powell Square demolition costing city $265K to be billed to owner. Why should city be fronting that kind of money to wreck a sound building?
-RBB
- 11K
I think the issue wasn't that the building itself was unsound, but that it was too easy to get into - that it wasn't secured.
^I think that's a fair statement. The fire that happened in a building at Chouteau's landing (I think last year) certainly didn't help the cause.
And knocking the thing down was a preferable solution to hiring some guards or putting up a fence? $285K would have bought a lot of security.Alex Ihnen wrote:I think the issue wasn't that the building itself was unsound, but that it was too easy to get into - that it wasn't secured.
-RBB
- 11K
My guess? The owner didn't want to pay for the fence or security and the city called his bluff. And the owner very possibly didn't mind seeing it come down either.
- 8,155
I wouldn't doubt that is the case and it would be interesting to know precisely what was cited. Alex could be right about the trespass issue, although I'm pretty sure the owner could have easily tied that up (mere trespass as opposed to inherent structural dangers) in the courts for a long time if he wanted to.... sounds like he was largely acquiescent. Speaking of trespassers, Channel 4 had a couple on who did their wedding photos there.... it looked really cool!rbb wrote:Michael Allen seemed to think it was sound:roger wyoming II wrote:^ 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.
(Michael R. Allen (@PreservationSTL) tweeted at 10:02 PM on Tue, Jan 08, 2013:
Powell Square demolition costing city $265K to be billed to owner. Why should city be fronting that kind of money to wreck a sound building?
-RBB
The excellent and informed vanishingstl's post noted the premature removal of the windows as the building was being marketed was a mistake as it led to a greater identification in the public mind as a derelict eyesore. But again not necessarily leading to a structural issue.
Anyway, I didn't realize before reading the post that the redevelopment proposal was much grander than just a Photography hall, but rather for bringing a complex like the Torpedo Factory to Saint Louis.... I think such an ambitious undertaking has merit here and maybe the North Riverfront could be a good location.
STL Today Story
...The city condemned the building and got a demolition permit. It is paying $265,000 to take down the reinforced concrete structure... Murphy (owner of the building) did not appeal the city’s condemnation (and) is not getting “a free teardown” from the city. The city adds demolition costs to property owners’ tax bills. If the taxes go unpaid for three years, the city can seize the property.
She's almost gone. It is going to be weird to see this building gone. Now MOdot has the land to build a nice two land entry ramp onto the PSB. But that won't happen I am sure. What is slated for here if anything. Another eye sore of a littered junky overgrown lot? I hope not. I would rather have looked at Powell Square.
It's been kind of depressing watching the demolition of this building as I drive into work downtown every day.
They wanted to get rid of an eyesore, but I think the demolition and soon to come overgrown lot is more of an eyesore than the building was. Lost opportunities or something like that...the hope that something cool would fill the place has been taken away.
They wanted to get rid of an eyesore, but I think the demolition and soon to come overgrown lot is more of an eyesore than the building was. Lost opportunities or something like that...the hope that something cool would fill the place has been taken away.
- 2,005
I noticed a few more buildings being torn down in the Chouteau's Landing area. One on 4th across from White Castle, the other on Gratiot and 3rd. This place will be a parking lot sooner than later unfortunately.
- 1,792
^It'd be hard to build a stadium around the railroad tracks in Chouteau's Landing. Now just S. of Chouteau is a possibility though...
- 3,235
The one with the mural was demo'd by accident. The person who submitted the paper work requesting demo entered an address outside of the historic district. Therefore the building was approved to be razed. And that's a fact from an elected official.
- 3,762
^ well that's terrific. good to know everyone's doing their job and double-checking addresses before demolishing sh*t. i wouldn't be surprised if the "mistake" was intentional on the part of the applicant.
