urbanSTL

What a great looking addition!



It is true how so many great projects keep getting announced, seemingly one after another. Lets just hope that the majority of them can reach completion, and we're all alive to enjoy it.

Pretty cool! But will it pass the Historic Tax Credit mustard?

They are about to start accepting reservations for this bldg very soon.

Good to hear. This should be a really cool building to live in and I expect it to sell quickly.

Citylover wrote:Awesome! Xing where did you find that?

Xing, I never did read where you got that rendering of the 12-story addition for the Switzer Building? Nothing I have read mentioned an addition, including a press release sent out about the project a couple weeks ago. I know there have been a few previous proposals drawn up for the building before Pete Rothschild and Sam Berger stepped in... could this be one of those older renderings?



Maybe it is a different Switzer Candy Factory since it mentions it being a historic 1974 brick and stone bulding....

Framer wrote:Pretty cool! But will it pass the Historic Tax Credit mustard?

Pass the mustard! Would that be French's or Grey Poupon?



But, yeah, if they are getting Federal Historic Tax Credits, I would think the NPS would have a problem with that addition on the top. The addition next to it should be ok, as long as it respects, but contrasts the historic construction, but actual modifications to the historic building are a no-no. Maybe since the building is so far gone structurally, they got a pass on some of the stricter requirements.

urbanstlouis wrote:

Citylover wrote:Awesome! Xing where did you find that?

Xing, I never did read where you got that rendering of the 12-story addition for the Switzer Building? Nothing I have read mentioned an addition, including a press release sent out about the project a couple weeks ago.

Since more comments are being made regarding the rendering Xing posted and we don't know where it came from, I contacted Rosemann & Associates on the matter. Rosemann recently received the architectural design contract for the Switzer Building renovation, so their plan is what we will see take shape there.



The rendering Xing posted was created by The Lawrence Group when they were competing for the Switzer Bldg. project. Again, Rosemann & Associates has received the architectural design contract for the Switzer Building renovation and NOT The Lawrence Group, so this is NOT what will be done.

Thank you for clearing that up.



-Adam



apickett@rosemann.com

A little bit ago I heard that a large number of bricks came off of the building onto the Eads, pretty much shutting the bridge down.

KSDK - Storms came tearing through the St. Louis area Wednesday night, causing damage, accidents, and several power outages.



The storms came from the northeast, heading in a southwest direction.



There was at least one report of a tornado sighting near Jefferson Barracks, and there were several accidents, many of which involved tractor trailers that were turned over by high winds.



At least three buildings in the city of St. Louis had at least partially collapsed, including parts of a building that fell onto the Eads Bridge.

Full Story



-RBB

I was very dissapointed to hear this. Hopefully the building can still be renovated. Possibly another loss to us collectively twiddling our thumbs.

Instead of bricks, I should have said wall.







Saw the coverage on 5 - pretty impressive.

We had representatives on site from our office as early as this morning. I will try to get the pictures from them to share w/ you guys. The brick damage was pretty extensive (obviously!), however, a lot of that facade and brick was to be repaired/ replaced anyway. So, the challenge now is to see what brick can be re-used from the collapse. But, I do not think this is a complete tragedy. Work is already being done to stabalize the remaining structure.



I will give another update as soon as I hear something. I will try to get the pictures on here in the next few days.



Thanks,

Adam

This photo was on stltoday.com. So sad

Wow! That's way worse than I thought.

apickett wrote:We had representatives on site from our office as early as this morning. I will try to get the pictures from them to share w/ you guys. The brick damage was pretty extensive (obviously!), however, a lot of that facade and brick was to be repaired/ replaced anyway. So, the challenge now is to see what brick can be re-used from the collapse. But, I do not think this is a complete tragedy. Work is already being done to stabalize the remaining structure.



I will give another update as soon as I hear something. I will try to get the pictures on here in the next few days.



Thanks,

Adam

How come in the views I saw from above, the actual floors only went 1/2 way back into the building. In other words, the whole back half was nothing but a brick shell. Was it always like that? Or was that part of the renovation?

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Was it always like that?

As far as I can remember, the interior's been hollow like that.



Ironically, I just snapped a shot of the south wall 3 days beforehand

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
How come in the views I saw from above, the actual floors only went 1/2 way back into the building. In other words, the whole back half was nothing but a brick shell. Was it always like that? Or was that part of the renovation?

The east sections of the upper floors collapsed inside of the building years ago, leaving that wall structurally un-tied.

ecoabsence wrote:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
How come in the views I saw from above, the actual floors only went 1/2 way back into the building. In other words, the whole back half was nothing but a brick shell. Was it always like that? Or was that part of the renovation?

The east sections of the upper floors collapsed inside of the building years ago, leaving that wall structurally un-tied.

Which is probably why the wind blew it down Wednesday. There was no supporting structure.

Does this mean that the painted wall sign was damaged?

A big chunk of that southern wall went with the riverside facade. Of interest, though, the painted Switzer's logo is still intact. Here are some week-apart before and after photos:





...and a stitched wide-angle of the (former) southeast corner:

Well, I'm not an engineer (or someone who lends millions of dollars to developers), but that collapse looks catastrophic. Can this building (and this development) still be saved?

I remember standing on Eads Bridge LAST summer during Riversplash/Eats Bridge, looking at the east facade of the Switzer Building, and thinking that it was a miracle it hadn't come down already THEN (and, yes, I do know a thing or two about historic structures). So, I am amazed it had not come down a long time ago. Several times I have thought about posting something on the subject, but I guess I just assumed that the new ownership group had stabilized the building.



I also had not checked recently to see whether or not the lot east of the building was cordoned off, but if not, it is mystifying to me why the city allowed such an obvious safety hazard to go uncorrected for so long. It was hazardous not just to people walking east of the building, but obviously also to those driving on Eads Bridge. Pedestrians often cut through that lot, and under the bridge, during events on the riverfront/Arch grounds and the Landing. Many times during Fair St. Louis, I have seen people seeking refuge from storms directly under that facade, or under the bridge next to the Switzer Building.

Framer wrote:Well, I'm not an engineer (or someone who lends millions of dollars to developers), but that collapse looks catastrophic. Can this building (and this development) still be saved?

I wouldn't be too worried. As I (and others) have stated, the whole eastern third of the building was pretty much gone already and would have had to have been rebuilt anyway.



Ironically, this may actually reduce the cost of restoration. In order for the developer to receive Federal Historic Tax Credit approval from the National Park Service, they must restore all of the existing facade, and any existing unique or decorative interior features, of the historic structure, to its original state, including any portions of that section of the building which are missing or structurally unstable. I think the rule-of-thumb, is, that as long as a majority of the existing section of the building is intact, the entire section must be restored, and, of course, no existing historic section may be removed. The developer DOES NOT have to restore sections of the building that are missing in their entirety, such as, now, the entire east facade... This will eliminate the cost of shoring/stabilizing the easternmost two or three bays of the building, and the cost of rebuilding/replicating the east facade, which is a lot of $$$.



The developers could not have planned it any better...