urbanSTL

Doug wrote:The building was damaged.

The World Trade Center was also "damaged".

Doug wrote:When there is will there is a way. This building could be saved...

Are you willing to pay for it? No? I didn't think so. It's so easy to spend some body else's money.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

Doug wrote:The building was damaged.

The World Trade Center was also "damaged".

Doug wrote:When there is will there is a way. This building could be saved...

Are you willing to pay for it? No? I didn't think so. It's so easy to spend some body else's money.

Public officials, especially the ones off the top of my head who raise excessively large amounts of money, have the capacity to create a crisis situation and get this on the agenda. People would donate money given their powers of persuasion.



The Mullanphy effort is going very well. Jim Shrewsbury is sending out letters to his supporters asking for money. This kind of act is even more effective when a given official gets on the news and highlights the need for help. This is definitely within their reach as it is one of their informal powers.



Yet they have deferred to the developer who's primary goal is profit. Historical appeal and sentimental value is not necessarily one of their concerns, especially when it is not cost effective. This is where public officials mobilize support and make it a concern of the public.

southcitygent wrote:I believe we have an obligation to preserve our historical buildings. Economics shouldn't be the only factor in deciding what can be saved. First the city needs to be more proactive in keeping building from falling past the point of no return, by pressuring landowners to keep them maintained and offering incentives and low interest loans to accomplish those goals. If a building falls into disrepair the city should pay fair market value (or back taxes) stabilize them and then turn them over to someone who will renovate. This should apply to both commercial and residential buildings, Chicago has done this for years with great success.

I don't disagree. But in the case of the Switzer Building, they should have done this 30 years ago.

I know that people have to grieve, but I think it is unfair to keep complaining about the Century because it is long gone. I think City Hall got the message about the Century a long time ago. While it would have been nice to have both (the Century and Switzer), they are now history.



On the upside, more buildings are being saved in St. Louis than ever before. Hell, they even saved the old downtown 7Up world headquarters. The once-decimated Franklin School downtown is on the cusp of being a great living space. There's a lot of positive preservation happening in St. Louis.



I usually appreciate the passion people have about the city, however, I don't think we should be knocking the folks over at City Hall in regards to this demolition.



As far as I know, EVERYBODY wanted this building saved. I'm sorry, but none of us are structural engineers - that I know of. That building, although it sat rotting for decades, was going to be saved.



A storm damaged it severely, and quite frankly, it probably was a sign from God. The wind huffed and puffed and blew it to smithereens to the dismay of a lot of people - including me. But I am glad that building came crumbling down when it did.



Perhaps some lives were saved.

Arch City wrote:I know that people have to grieve, but I think it is unfair to keep complaining about the Century because it is long gone. I think City Hall got the message about the Century a long time ago. While it would have been nice to have both (the Century and Switzer), they are now history.



On the upside, more buildings are being saved in St. Louis than ever before. Hell, they even saved the old downtown 7Up world headquarters. The once-decimated Franklin School downtown is on the cusp of being a great living space. There's a lot of positive preservation happening in St. Louis.



I usually appreciate the passion people have about the city, however, I don't think we should be knocking the folks over at City Hall in regards to this demolition.



As far as I know, EVERYBODY wanted this building saved. I'm sorry, but none of us are structural engineers - that I know of. That building, although it sat rotting for decades, was going to be saved.



A storm damaged it severely, and quite frankly, it probably was a sign from God. The wind huffed and puffed and blew it to smithereens to the dismay of a lot of people - including me. But I am glad that building came crumbling down when it did.



Perhaps some lives were saved.

100% agree.



It's great to fight to save a favorite building, but when you lose, at some point you have to move on and stop constantly whining about it.



BTW, which building is the old 7UP HQ?

Magnatron wrote:Yes, every city has destroyed historic buildings, but we can't deny it has happened here more often.

More often than what? Other cities? That is true. It is also true that it has probably happened here less often than still other cities.

Magnatron wrote:But the fact of the matter is, if the city did not let this building fall into disrepair, all could have been saved including avoiding the storm damage altogether. A few dollars to patch a hole in the roof can decide a buidlings fate. Let it go, rain trickles in, beams and supports rot and rust through. Floors collapse, and before you know it the structural inegrity is gone. The cost to make a few minor repairs to the roof probably would not have surpassed the cost to hire a wrecking crew.

But was it the city's problem to fix? Who owned the building before Rothchild?

steve wrote:I would generally agree that we need to "move on" in terms of the Century, but I disagree with CS in that we should not "get over it." To me, "get over it" means forget about it.

To me it means "stop whining about it and move on".

steve wrote:
That's why we study history--to never forget [read, learn from] mistakes. Should the American people "get over" Watergate? Should humanity "get over" totalitarianism and its crimes?

Yes and yes.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:BTW, which building is the old 7UP HQ?

Below are photos of the building. Too bad they couldn't call it the 7Up Lofts or The Soda Lofts or something more fun.



Photos not taken by me.



Terrace Lofts website



From the website:



"Built in the mid 1900's this three-story building has been a symbol of downtown St. Louis's pride and entrepreneurship. Originally built as the world headquarters for the 7up company, this building has many stories to tell about the bustling 50's. The architecture is unique to its era, and lends itself nicely for living spaces. The building is approximately 55,000 square feet on the upper three floors, with a basement under two-thirds of the floor plate. The structure was built in two separate sections, with two-thirds built in concrete, and one-third built with timber and red brick. The building is shaped like a “U”, with a large courtyard in between."

That is a good point. What are the bills?

The people in City Hall have no fortitude. Its as simple as that.

Another great set.



Once the demo is complete, I hope that property gets built upon sooner than later.