103
Junior MemberJunior Member
103

PostNov 29, 2025#801

Really sorry to read about this. This is indeed a tragedy. I don't think anyone has shared the P-D article yet, so here is that, along with a few of my thoughts and ramblings for whatever they're worth:

Apparently, it was a five-alarm fire. I am dubious that this originated from a homeless bonfire, even though there were individuals in the buildings who were rescued. Seems like much too large of a fire that spread too quickly to be only an accident. We're talking about 6-8 buildings, albeit interconnected, completely engulfed in flames. I'm not directly accusing GDC of foul play, but it does seem kind of suspicious that the project was scaled back a month ago, then the tilt-up warehouse was announced with no mention of Crunden-Martin, and now the fire destroys the CM complex. The complex probably would have ended up being one of the more difficult and expensive things to rehabilitate, and I'm sure they had an insurance policy on the properties. Regardless of the circumstances, there needs to be a follow-up investigation, which I assume will happen in a week or so once the fire is completely dead.

Along the lines of homelessness, someone above mentioned Railway Exchange. Under absolutely no circumstances can that structure be allowed to burn down! Hopefully seeing Crunden-Martin will show some of those dissenting aldermen the importance of properly securing your buildings. Same goes for Chemical and 909 Chestnut. Property owners and the city need to get a grip on this issue before we lose more irreplaceable architecture.

I really would prefer not to see more tilt-up warehouses here, but I suppose it's better than nothing for now. Hopefully some future developer with deep pockets will be willing to complete the redevelopment of the area. Right now, as symphonicpoet and others said, GDC needs to prove their commitment to the region by making sure that Gateway South does not end up being another Bottle District.

Lastly, the loss of the Crunden-Martin complex is significant not just for the shattered future promises, but also for its corporate history, design, and position on the St. Louis riverfront. The design of the complex in particular was really interesting. I liked that 4-story skybridge with the signage going over 2nd Street. The curved courtyard/air shaft thing in the middle of the main 6 buildings could have been a really interesting indoor-outdoor retail mall concept with boutique offices or lofts above. Oh well, best not to linger on what could have been and instead figure out what can be done now.

For anyone who made it down this far, thanks for taking the time to read my long-winded comments. While this news is saddening, I look forward to seeing the next chapter for Chouteau's Landing.

913

PostNov 29, 2025#802

Why should we let this group have anything to do with this redevelopment project now? This should be a “fireable” offense. Let them burn a massive brick legacy warehouse on our riverfront and start building fulfillment and trucking slop?

1,793
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,793

PostNov 29, 2025#803

quincunx wrote:
Nov 28, 2025
So sad.

You just have to assume every vacant building will burn.
With time homeless people will burn down every vacant building that the owner chooses to leave unsecured.

That huge old school building in the grove (visible from 40) is probably next

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostNov 29, 2025#804

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:
Nov 29, 2025
quincunx wrote:
Nov 28, 2025
So sad.

You just have to assume every vacant building will burn.
With time homeless people will burn down every vacant building that the owner chooses to leave unsecured.

That huge old school building in the grove (visible from 40) is probably next
Agreed.  It is just a matter of time as well as the building he owns at Kingshighway and McPherson.  It was wide open last week when I was in the area.  

913

PostNov 29, 2025#805

Saw that pile of beautiful St. Louis red brick down in Couteau’s landing. Will look great for the patios in a new DFW housing development once they sell those!

502
Senior MemberSenior Member
502

PostNov 29, 2025#806

If an investigation returns any foul play with this fire, the ramifications will need to be huge.

What about the fire suppression system? Shouldn’t the building still had water in the sprinkler pipes to try and help fight this prior to it getting out of control? Or is standard procedure to drain those when the building’s been vacant for a little bit? Because the main building wasn’t vacant for very long.

All the smoke could’ve included some sort of toxins that blew into residential neighborhoods.

You had fire fighters and battalion chiefs recalled to work when they were off to assist with County fire departments backfilling for STLFD in the City (standard procedure, but still a massive inconvenience).

Train traffic is/was halted due to a partial building collapse onto the tracks and railroad ties apparently lighting on fire.

Electric was cut for numerous buildings and businesses.

Several riverfront-era buildings are gone now, so now the collection is the few remaining near Lumiere Place, Laclede’s Landing, St. Mary of Victories and the few buildings on Chouteau.

Big promises were made, in exchange for fat incentive packages, that involved redeveloping the old buildings and weaving them into a new neighborhood. This is still possible, but the unfortunate reality is that this “new neighborhood” likely won’t be mixed-use.

15
New MemberNew Member
15

PostNov 29, 2025#807

delmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote:
Nov 29, 2025
Why should we let this group have anything to do with this redevelopment project now? This should be a “fireable” offense. Let them burn a massive brick legacy warehouse on our riverfront and start building fulfillment and trucking slop?
There should be no fulfillment facilities or truck stops or data centers. The city needs to be clear on this we want a vibrant riverfront not more industrial wasteland.   Rather have the land sit vacant for 20 more years than any of that.

913

PostNov 29, 2025#808

Every inventive should be pulled

75
New MemberNew Member
75

PostNov 29, 2025#809




I agree that incentives should be pulled and the city should reimagine the vision for this site. It was their responsibility to protect these buildings, and at this point I think it’s obvious that even if GDC’s plan still moved forward, it would be a far cry from the original plan that was proposed to the public. This would not move the needle at all in making Downtown St Louis better, and would make it harder to ever have anything resembling a vibrant riverfront district.

I would much rather the city take 10 years to figure out a way to fix the 44/64/55 mess and connect the Arch grounds to Downtown and Chouteau’s Landing. Then bring in several developers to build up the site as a true mixed use neighborhood.

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostNov 29, 2025#810

STLcommenter wrote:
Nov 29, 2025



I agree that incentives should be pulled and the city should reimagine the vision for this site. It was their responsibility to protect these buildings, and at this point I think it’s obvious that even if GDC’s plan still moved forward, it would be a far cry from the original plan that was proposed to the public. This would not move the needle at all in making Downtown St Louis better, and would make it harder to ever have anything resembling a vibrant riverfront district.

I would much rather the city take 10 years to figure out a way to fix the 44/64/55 mess and connect the Arch grounds to Downtown and Chouteau’s Landing. Then bring in several developers to build up the site as a true mixed use neighborhood.
Looks right up Related Midwest's alley.

406
Full MemberFull Member
406

PostNov 29, 2025#811

STLcommenter wrote:
Nov 29, 2025



I agree that incentives should be pulled and the city should reimagine the vision for this site. It was their responsibility to protect these buildings, and at this point I think it’s obvious that even if GDC’s plan still moved forward, it would be a far cry from the original plan that was proposed to the public. This would not move the needle at all in making Downtown St Louis better, and would make it harder to ever have anything resembling a vibrant riverfront district.

I would much rather the city take 10 years to figure out a way to fix the 44/64/55 mess and connect the Arch grounds to Downtown and Chouteau’s Landing. Then bring in several developers to build up the site as a true mixed use neighborhood.
A condo building would never be allowed to be built on the Arch grounds. Where is this rendering from? 

75
New MemberNew Member
75

PostNov 29, 2025#812

SRQ2STL wrote:
STLcommenter wrote:
Nov 29, 2025



I agree that incentives should be pulled and the city should reimagine the vision for this site. It was their responsibility to protect these buildings, and at this point I think it’s obvious that even if GDC’s plan still moved forward, it would be a far cry from the original plan that was proposed to the public. This would not move the needle at all in making Downtown St Louis better, and would make it harder to ever have anything resembling a vibrant riverfront district.

I would much rather the city take 10 years to figure out a way to fix the 44/64/55 mess and connect the Arch grounds to Downtown and Chouteau’s Landing. Then bring in several developers to build up the site as a true mixed use neighborhood.
A condo building would never be allowed to be built on the Arch grounds. Where is this rendering from? 
Just an AI vision for the area so I would ignore that building


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

547
Senior MemberSenior Member
547

PostNov 29, 2025#813

Add an NBA arena instead of an MLS stadium and we could have our own version of The 78 in Chicago.

https://www.relatedmidwest.com/our-comp ... perties/78

9,528
Life MemberLife Member
9,528

PostNov 29, 2025#814

Arch grounds end at poplar street bridge, this is all south of it

406
Full MemberFull Member
406

PostNov 29, 2025#815

dbInSouthCity wrote:
Nov 29, 2025
Arch grounds end at poplar street bridge, this is all south of it
Right, but in the AI render posted, there's one north of the Poplar Bridge, I was pointing out.

913

PostNov 29, 2025#816

absolute travesty what the redevelopment of this area south of the arch and on our river could have represented. The image of the arch framed in our red brick warehouses spoke the history of St. Louis.

We got fooled again by developers in our downtown

15
New MemberNew Member
15

PostNov 29, 2025#817

STLcommenter wrote:
Nov 29, 2025



I agree that incentives should be pulled and the city should reimagine the vision for this site. It was their responsibility to protect these buildings, and at this point I think it’s obvious that even if GDC’s plan still moved forward, it would be a far cry from the original plan that was proposed to the public. This would not move the needle at all in making Downtown St Louis better, and would make it harder to ever have anything resembling a vibrant riverfront district.

I would much rather the city take 10 years to figure out a way to fix the 44/64/55 mess and connect the Arch grounds to Downtown and Chouteau’s Landing. Then bring in several developers to build up the site as a true mixed use neighborhood.
I agree with this exactly except for the ai hiccup, what we need is a 20-year plan for the area that will be include south of the arch grounds as well as the sea of parking lots south of the stadium.  It needs s be a long-term plan of connecting downtown to the urban fabric of the south side, as Chouteau's landing all parties need to be on board, including East west gateway, MOdot TRRA (the spurs that do not lead to the MacArthur bridge need to be moved underground into a tunnel if possible.) as well as the feds. (the person in the white house won't be there forever) 

103
Junior MemberJunior Member
103

PostNov 30, 2025#818

This is going to be a bit unconventional, but hear me out. The fire was terrible, but it did not completely destroy the buildings. Drawing inspiration from this project in Nashville (thanks framer for originally posting this in the Nashville thread), would it be possible to stabilize what's left of Crunden-Martin and build new construction in and around it? GDC was already planning to do this with the westernmost building. In fact, even if GDC is not the one to carry this out, a lot of their original plan for C-M could be reused. Perhaps C-M could become more mixed-use than what they initially proposed. I feel like this could be a big destination for STL and be symbolically powerful too, a physical representation of the phoenix rising from ashes. Rather than letting this fire be the end of Crunden-Martin, what if it enriches its story and starts a new chapter? Ok, I need to stop with the buzzwords, I sound like a developer. But seriously, what do you all think? I attached a pack of AI renderings just to convey my general idea, not intended to be an exact representation of the final product. 

Also, to clarify from my earlier post, turns out the "courtyard" is actually an old railroad spur. Makes sense. GDC was also planning to have that be a retail/open area concept.
Edit the provided ur.png (2.38MiB)
Edit the provided ph.png (3.05MiB)
Edit the provided ae.png (2.84MiB)
Create a nighttime l.png (2.37MiB)
+1

259
Full MemberFull Member
259

PostNov 30, 2025#819

anything is possible! I like it. 

9,528
Life MemberLife Member
9,528

PostNov 30, 2025#820

dylank wrote:
Nov 30, 2025
anything is possible! I like it. 
Yes, if the project didn’t have to make a return for the investor, it is possible

259
Full MemberFull Member
259

PostNov 30, 2025#821

Haha yes thanks Denis. Dreaming, but I like the renderings. Locally, reminds me of the church in grand center that is now a shell event space. 

Trying to dissociate from the reality of tilt ups here. But if it works and we get jobs, OK. Maybe a semblance of the original project can exist via the smaller buildings. 

2,052
Life MemberLife Member
2,052

PostDec 01, 2025#822

Someone got a video of the fire from the interstate - bigger than I expected it to look... 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRnM8fpA ... p2aGdwem4z

1,607
Totally AddictedTotally Addicted
1,607

PostDec 01, 2025#823

Drive by it today. Massive destruction. Fire had to have been raging.

226
Junior MemberJunior Member
226

PostDec 01, 2025#824

If these historic buildings were the cornerstones of new development then why weren’t they secured? This is a predictable outcome if homeless are known to use them for shelter. I’m sure it’s expensive to secure buildings that big but compared to the loss and cleanup it’s nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

8,904
Life MemberLife Member
8,904

PostDec 01, 2025#825

I keep hearing “no matter how well we secure the building the homeless will find a way” That sounds like an BS excuse to me but there’s definitely some truth to it.

Read more posts (49 remaining)