urbanSTL

^ Ah, good to hear. Hope the rear demo is denied unless he plans to build something bigger/better behind it.

There's been a lot of work done on the Wolfner building lately; tuck pointing, facade stabilization, etc. I don't know anything about the rear, but nobody would have put all that work into a building they want to tear down.

I don't know who Olive West Properties is, but I believe they now own pretty much that whole block of Olive (both sides). Two buildings close to the Wolfner were torn down recently, and I think the last one (right across the street) is going soon.

Clearly something is up here; I guess time will tell.

^That'd be my guess: they intend to put on a new addition. Will be interesting to see what they have in mind, and I'll go out on a limb and guess many questions will be asked and the preservation board's answer will probably depend on what the developer has in mind and how much they aim to knock down. "Demolition of rear only" is a little vague. Rear wall? Rear bay? Rear section to primary structural divide? I can think of a bunch of reasons they might want to. Would surely make it easier to build elevators, for instance. Would make all those little modern code niceties easier, really: new access, ventilation, electrical service. I don't know what kind of shape the interior is in or whether it was all that significant anyway. But even if the interior is a complete wreck with no historical fabric remaining I'd be happy to see the facade preserved.

As was said before: we will see.

Olive West Properties appears to be related to the Pulitzer Arts Foundation, not SLU. James Maloney is the secretary and treasurer of the Pulitzer Arts Foundation. And if you look at the address for Olive West Properties in the assessor's records for some of the parcels they own, like 3826 Olive, it gives the Pulitzer's address.

The church looks a lot better and has better site plan than I had feared. Tearing down the existing building, I mean there's so much vacant land elsewhere

^I don't care for the parsonage demo. Curious why they even want to. Maintenance costs? Looks like it needs some TLC on g-maps, but it's a lovely little building and it gives the front of the church some real interest.

Also . . . do they mean replacing the lawn with turf on Ann Ave? The facade looks to be bog-standard brick and not anything wonky like turf. They have to mean the lawn. I confess, I might think about that sort of stuff when mowing (or cursing about) mine, but I wouldn't favor actually doing it.

Seems to me there's some real curiosities in this one. The Chouteau and Tower Grove project caught my eye as several of the adjacent buildings appear to me to have been built as a small brewery in the 30s. But what really got my attention is the name of the owner. It's so . . . generic. "St. Louis Branch LLC." Branch of what? A little digging shows that this company is registered at 1637 N. Watson Rd, which doesn't even appear to be a real address. And the agent is apparently the secretary and general counsel for the parent of the company that applied to do the demo: Western Specialty Contractors. Which company seems to own or be affiliated with the business that last occupied the site: Western Waterproofing Co. Why hide your ownership? Why does a construction company want green space? This may be entirely legit. Could be some filing errors. Maybe Western Specialty wants out of the area. (There is a for sale sign.) But it's . . . a bit surprising. (And the last thing that part of Gravois needs is more green space.)

The next one that strikes me as slightly suspect is 2907 McNair. The listing says they want to "create green space" without mentioning how. This one seems a little more straightforward. The ownership at least seems clear. But why not just admit you want to demolish something? The city gives a construction date of 1890, but a simple google maps view makes the place look . . . interesting. The front is clearly not the same age as the back. Better still: there appear to be four properties sandwiched together on three lots: 2901, 2905, and 2907. 2901 and the front half of 2907 have cast iron details consistent with late 19th century St. Louis construction. 2905 is much simpler. Simple brick and arches. And, wait for it, it matches the dimensions, fenestration, and general location and description of a property in Compton and Dry. One with a smaller property next to it set back from the street that just might match up with the back half of 2907. I don't think it's actually 1890. That's . . . an error. The front is 1890. The back is older. Maybe much older. The drawing makes it look like it should really be about halfway down the block where the church is now, but most of the street is empty in the Compton and Dry. And while they were really very very good, it wasn't always perfect. I really think that back half might be the truly historic bit. Maybe the oldest thing on the street. And I worry that's what they want to demolish for green space. Sadly, there's no good street view of it. It's just too buried in the middle of things. Why not cop to a demo? What's to hide there? That property looks REALLY fascinating. Unusually so. Even for a neighborhood with some rather old homes.

Anyway, that's my trip down the rabbit hole. Some interesting questions, anyway. Can't say I agree with any of the demos, but none of the rest of them really surprise me. Apart from Ronald McDonald I think the rest are all appeals of denials anyway. But those two caught my attention for one reason or another. More information is warranted in both cases, I think.

No way that building on Locust gets approved to demo. Is there not an abundance of street and surface parking available around there? Especially on peak days like... Sunday, I imagine?

Aligned just invested in that space across the street. That whole area is coming up with creative groups. This building could easily be rehabbed and marketed to creative companies.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2018

A little digging shows that this company is registered at 1637 N. Watson Rd, which doesn't even appear to be a real address.

That's 1637 N Warson in unincorporated St. Louis County

quincunx wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2018

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2018

A little digging shows that this company is registered at 1637 N. Watson Rd, which doesn't even appear to be a real address.

That's 1637 N Warson in unincorporated St. Louis County

Which is the listed headquarters for Western Specialty Contractors: http://www.westernspecialtycontractors.com/about/

This is in preparation for the construction of the new Ronald McDonald House in FPSE.



-RBB

I think there's some mix up.
The properties at Chouteau and Tower Grove are already owned by Ronald McDonald House.

The properties on Gravois that could become green space are the ones owned by ST LOUIS BRANCH LLC, 1637 N WARSON RD, applicant Western Construction Group

A serious question; why would they want to spend the money to demo all of those Gravois buildings for green space? Why not just try to sell them? If that turns to green space, Gravois is just an utterly depressed stretch of stroad.

bwcrow1s wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2018

A serious question; why would they want to spend the money to demo all of those Gravois buildings for green space? Why not just try to sell them? If that turns to green space, Gravois is just an utterly depressed stretch of stroad.

Don't you pay less in taxes if there is no building? That's my only guess, and because a construction company owns it, the likely think they can knock it down for cheap/free.

The lot to the north, 1947 Gravois, is owned by the same LLC. Maybe that's a clue.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2018

I think there's some mix up.
The properties at Chouteau and Tower Grove are already owned by Ronald McDonald House.

The properties on Gravois that could become green space are the ones owned by ST LOUIS BRANCH LLC, 1637 N WARSON RD, applicant Western Construction Group

It makes sense that it's a typo, but I promise, I'm not making it up. I got Watson of the Secretary of State's website.

https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/B ... ID=2041641

Still not sure why they want the green space. I'd really like to know more about the history and condition of those properties, and as bwcrow1s implied, demolition won't do any favors to that stretch of Gravois.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2018

quincunx wrote: ↑

Oct 17, 2018

I think there's some mix up.
The properties at Chouteau and Tower Grove are already owned by Ronald McDonald House.

The properties on Gravois that could become green space are the ones owned by ST LOUIS BRANCH LLC, 1637 N WARSON RD, applicant Western Construction Group

It makes sense that it's a typo, but I promise, I'm not making it up. I got Watson of the Secretary of State's website.

https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/B ... ID=2041641

Still not sure why they want the green space. I'd really like to know more about the history and condition of those properties, and as bwcrow1s implied, demolition won't do any favors to that stretch of Gravois.

I think he meant that you referenced the Ronald McDonald House area when talking about the Gravois Ave property.

I live around the corner from these and went by to check them out. The multi-family house is in good shape and the commercial building is bit rougher but in imminent danger of falling down or anything. Could easily be cleaned up and reused. I wonder if they own the building behind these that they just want more room for their junkyard.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2018

It makes sense that it's a typo, but I promise, I'm not making it up. I got Watson of the Secretary of State's website.

https://bsd.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/B ... ID=2041641

Indeed the SOS page says Watson. The STL Assessor page says Warson. Both have 63132 for the ZIP code which points to Warson.

ImprovSTL wrote: ↑

Oct 18, 2018

I live around the corner from these and went by to check them out. The multi-family house is in good shape and the commercial building is bit rougher but in imminent danger of falling down or anything. Could easily be cleaned up and reused. I wonder if they own the building behind these that they just want more room for their junkyard.

Yes, the property behind that is also theirs, per the city's records. (St. Louis Branch LLC, that is.) Could well be that they want more space for the junkyard, but . . . that's not terribly green in either the literal or metaphorical sense. Is the property still on the market? I drove by there the other day but forgot to look to see if the sign was still up. Also curious if the listing included the lot and buildings associated with 1947 Gravois. Maybe they just think they'd have an easier time selling if it were a blank slate. If someone had big plans for the site I'd be more willing to consider demo than for green space. (Not that it's up to me in any case.)

quincunx wrote: Indeed the SOS page says Watson. The STL Assessor page says Warson. Both have 63132 for the ZIP code which points to Warson.

Completely missed the ZIP code. Yes, that does seem a dead giveaway. (And they do have an office on Warson at that address, so . . . )

Western Waterproofing has been wanting to do this project for years now. They actually already applied for the same demos around 5 years ago and were denied. Back then their intention was to build a new structure, IIRC, because they didn't like having to rent equip storage space in the lot at 2015 Cushing. I'm pretty sure there should be a record in the Preserv Board agendas.

johnnyqnola wrote: ↑

Oct 19, 2018

Western Waterproofing has been wanting to do this project for years now. They actually already applied for the same demos around 5 years ago and were denied. Back then their intention was to build a new structure, IIRC, because they didn't like having to rent equip storage space in the lot at 2015 Cushing. I'm pretty sure there should be a record in the Preserv Board agendas.

So why want green space now and no building?