a demo request has been added
MIssouri Foundation for Health is at it again.
They claimed they were going to rehab this and now the rear has collapsed under their ownership
This does not smell right.
At least it appears that they are trying to replicate the old building in the new construction, which is the point. However, it seems odd that they promised to renovate in 2017 and then walked back. They most likely knew the condition of the building then and decided to sit on the property to build something new. I don't know. I would hope they reuse, what looks to be, some metal columns in the existing facade
Yeah, if they build that exactly as is, them I'm ok with it. Just make the demo permit conditional on financing being in place for the new construction or some other form of massive penalty if the demo and then try to walk back again.
There are several things that bother me about the MFH request, even though it is not the worst thing that has come before the Preservation Board:
1. Their first proposal in 4/2017 was to demolish the historic shed structure as well as the 4 family next to the proposed demo, and rehab this corner building. They got permission to demolish the shed structure but not the 4 family, and rehab the main building and this corner building. It bothers me that they did not uphold the other part of their bargain re: the corner building. If it was not able to be salvaged at the time they took control of the site, they should have come back to the Preservation Board with that, and said they could not rehab the building and fulfill part of their compromise agreement, and see if the agreement still stood. If the building was able to be salvaged at the time but now is not, they should be called out for allowing the building to deteriorate despite the agreement to rehab it.
2. The proposed building is more different from the existing building than you might think at first glance. The existing building is three stories along Tower Grove with a true mansard roof (rare in the neighborhood), the new one looks to be two stories with a faux mansard hat. The existing building steps down from three to two stories on Vista, with the two story portion configured in an L-shape. It looks like the new building portion along Vista is two, then steps down to one.
3. Looking at their pictures and the building from the street, it is not clear to me that anything other than the rear portion of the "L" shape on Vista has collapsed, so I hope they present more info about how much of the building is really not able to be rehabbed.
4. Hopefully they will have a lot more details about their rendering at the meeting. Is it an actual plan, a suggestion, a placeholder? What is that corrugated-looking material on the one story piece? There is detailed brickwork and terra cotta on the building, are they going to salvage and repurpose it, or try to replicate it? Are they going to reuse the existing cast iron? Are they going to do a detailed replication of the arched windows and arched glass, or do the shoddy version that I see so often with rectangular windows in an arched brick frame, with a wooden or plastic inset to make up the difference?
5. Have they done anything to stabilize their other property on Tower Grove, or will they be back at the Preservation Board with another demo request?
Approved
at the meeting someone representing MFH noted that they have a renovation permit already for 1408-1410 Tower Grove.
So hoping this is not more bait and switch.....
At the FPSE neighborhood association meeting a few weeks ago, they mentioned that they were waiting for the elevator (for ADA accessibility) to be delivered but were planning to start on the mid-block buff brick building soon. WUMCRC will apparently move their offices there, as well an office for Kaiser Health News.
On Twitter, Richard Callow said that the demolition was approved with a bucketful of conditions. Do you know what those conditions were?
rbeedee wrote:
At the FPSE neighborhood association meeting a few weeks ago, they mentioned that they were waiting for the elevator (for ADA accessibility) to be delivered but were planning to start on the mid-block buff brick building soon. WUMCRC will apparently move their offices there, as well an office for Kaiser Health News.
On Twitter, Richard Callow said that the demolition was approved with a bucketful of conditions. Do you know what those conditions were?
That they have to consult and get approval from cultural resources regarding design details
And the demo permit would be given only after a building permit is issued.
Seems petty that they won't allow the folks on Westminster to enclose their side porch. I mean, they're not proposing any old screened-in thing; it looks pretty classy to me.
framer wrote:
Seems petty that they won't allow the folks on Westminster to enclose their side porch. I mean, they're not proposing any old screened-in thing; it looks pretty classy to me.
I've never actually been to a Preservation Board hearing so I don't know their rationale on things like that but I've always thought that those kinds of denials were absurd.
framer wrote:
Seems petty that they won't allow the folks on Westminster to enclose their side porch. I mean, they're not proposing any old screened-in thing; it looks pretty classy to me.
If they built inside of original columns they might have a chance.
I appreciate the LS historic codes. But some paint on some already previously painted sills, on a home that you own, is a bit petty.
Also, thank you for snagging the headache ball from yet another home on the Hill for some trashy infill. So many gaudy scarface mansions have been popping up there on two shotgun-wide lots the past decade..
It is interesting when you consider how the PB comes down so hard on individual home-owners who stray from the rules while big-pocket institutions like BJC get away with eating up entire buildings.
rbeedee wrote:
At the FPSE neighborhood association meeting a few weeks ago, they mentioned that they were waiting for the elevator (for ADA accessibility) to be delivered but were planning to start on the mid-block buff brick building soon. WUMCRC will apparently move their offices there, as well an office for Kaiser Health News.
On Twitter, Richard Callow said that the demolition was approved with a bucketful of conditions. Do you know what those conditions were?
That they have to consult and get approval from cultural resources regarding design details
And the demo permit would be given only after a building permit is issued.
Some of these I get (vinyl window replacements being denied), but some of these I think should be approved (the garage port and painting on Crittenden as well as the retaining wall). Yes, the CRO plays a very important role, but some of these items feel minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
^ I agree with you in theory, but the painting of brick is not discouraged based on aesthetics, alone. It traps moisture in the really old, super soft orangey clay bricks, which after surprisingly few years can start popping and spalling bricks. Especially in the Crittenden example, where the painted wall used to be an unexposed party wall, which are made of even softer bricks. It should probably be stuccoed to best protect it from the elements.
