Staircase Further Degrades Attractive Building on Grand
Today I was trying to decide what to write about and scanning through my image collection I ran across the following from last February. Many of you have likely seen the emergency staircase constructed in late 2005/early 2006 at the SE corner of Grand & Park. The building is the location of the Hopewell Center, a group that provides much needed healthcare to the underserved and mentally ill.
While I applaud the services the Hopewell Center provides I want to call into question their stewardship of this fine building. For years the former retail level has had the windows closed up, giving the feeling of an area unsafe to have windows. Then, a year ago, this stair appears attached to the north face of the building. Most likely they were required to add a secondary staircase.  My issue is how they added the stair.
Above we see the stair working its way down to the sidewalk.
The north face of the building, not too attractive with the windows closed up, has become worse with the cinder blocks used at the base of the stairs. However, note the fine detailing and white glazed brick of the original.
Turning from Grand to Park you can see how the stair intrudes into the sidewalk. It is unclear from the records I found as to the exact property line — it is possible that some or all of the stair is built on the property owned by the Hopewell Center. However, that would place the traffic light pole on private property which is unlikely.
From the back of the building we can see they had more than enough room to use their parking lot for any needed expansion. The staircase can be seen on the right side in this image.
While I appreciate that non-profit organizations do not have excess funds to spend on fancy designs I think all need to be thoughtful about how their decisions impact the public space. With an annual budget of over $7 million, I believe this organization could have found a way to enrich this design enough to not be so offensive. This design may be functional but it is also degrading to the public realm.
At night the staircase becomes a beacon with the remainder of the building dark. The lighting, especially that nearest the sidewalk, is a visual assault to anyone attempting to walk on this sidewalk. We don’t need to blind people to provide quality safety lighting. This project is located in the 19th Ward during the tenure of Mike McMillan.
“Degrading to the public realm”? yes for sure — but dude, you better watch your vocabulary as you may be slipping into the academic lingua franca. 😉
I’ll say it plain: This thing is butt ugly and and insult to the neighborhood.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I basically agree – this was an unwanted expense for a non-profit that wants to focus their limited resousrces on service delivery, designed by an insensitive “professional” (engineer? architect?), aided and abetted by someone or someones in city government. Odds are this side made the best sense for exit separation on the upper floors (not on the back/parking lot side), but that’s still no excuse for taking up most of the sidewalk! The same goes for the “industrial aesthetic” (a.k.a. butt ugly design) – a much better design would have have cost very little more. Would it have had terra cotta details? No, of course not! Would it have brought back the street level shows windows? Nope. But it wouldn’t have had split-face concrete block, galvanized steel and mercury-vapor security lighting as the major design elements, either! Bottom line, a little more effort would’ve yielded a much better result!
The night shot especially has that maximum security look. You almost expect to see barbed wire somewhere.
On the flip side, there are a few good things that this illustrates. The city embraces a wide range of design styles. It focuses its efforts on true life-safety issues, not on micro-managing (questionable?) “good” taste. It’s willing to work with building owners to keep buildings occupied. And even though this may not be the best solution, it at least looks like it would be relatively easy to remove these stairs at some future date. Consider the alternatives – the Hopewell folks couldn’t afford to comply this way. What next? They move out and leave another vacant building? They tear this one down and build a one-story, vinyl-sided building on this site? Several of their clients don’t receive needed care? Staff gets laid off? Sometimes we need to tolerate “insensitive” design choices as interim uses if our goal is to preserve our historic urban fabric . . .
meh….
I agree, ugly.
But better ugly than people stuck in there during a fire.
Craptacular!
Textbook Eastern-Bloc design. My comopliments to the architecturally minded Comrades at the Hopewell Center, keepin’ it real with rectilinear form and industrial themes for the Benefit of the People.
Why does the stairwell not extend to the top floor?
“Perhaps getting the building in the hands of a developer would have been a better outcome.” Be careful what you ask for – the reality is “a Walgreen’s and other suburban uses” would be a much more likely scenario than a gut renovation, at least at the current time. Developers are (for the most part) NOT philanthropists. SLU can very well be considered to be both a “developer” and likely to be interested in this site. Hypothetically, would they be more interested in saving the structure or just obtaining the parcel for its land value and its adjacency to their campus? Given what they’re doing a few blocks further north, I would think that land banking and/or a replacement structure would be a more-likely outcome. Yes, there is a growing market for residential conversions in older office buildings outside of downtown and the Washington loft corridor. But, as you well know, in development, as in real estate, the cliche remains location, location, location. Go out MLK, go north or further south on Grand or Broadway, head north on Kingshighway or south on Gravois, etc., etc., and there are multiple, multiple old commercial structures, of all stripes, that would make great redevelopment projects, yet there simply is no market here for most of them (as redevelopment projects) AT THE PRESENT TIME! Should there be? Yes, but there simply isn’t! Better to find relatively-benign interim uses (like this one), for even twenty or thirty years, than to either “renovate” / “modernize” structures (like this one) beyond recognition or, worse, to tear them down. (And, yes, in many cases, benign neglect like this IS better than selling a building like this to a developer who sees no value in the structure, just current land value. Speculation is part of the reason MLK is struggling.) This building can be saved (if or when a market returns/develops here). Once it’s gone, it’s gone. (And does the current “solution” suck from both an architectural and an urben design standpoint? Yes! But at least the core structure still stands proud, unlike too many other “ghosts” – see http://www.eco-absence.org/.)
FYI – from the city’s website:
Type of Permit: Building
Application Number: 352582
Application Date: 10/24/2005
Completion Date: 01/20/2006
Issued Date: 11/10/2005
Application Description: EXTERIOR STAIRS PER PLANS
New Use: OFF/CLINIC
Estimated Costs: $150,000.00
What happens when government deals in favors at the expense of public’s rights? This appears (based on the assumption that the stairwell trespasses) to be another gross example of how a City and the trusted agents of “Hope” permit the loss of a sidewalk and a public right-of-way…shameful. Why couldn’t that offensive stairwell be placed on the side not facing the street? Everyone is damaged when public officials manage public assets with such disregard and basic law enforcement is nonexistent. Is this not further proof that favoritism trumps accountability here? Who OKed this permit? This is just another crime that is not accounted for in government’s statistics.
Can we put aside the aesthetic for a few minutes? Previously this building had served individuals who were going through substance abuse problems. Many were physically/emotionally/verbally abused as well as being subject to the ramifications of frequent drug usage. Also transpiring were people sneaking into the building via the emergency exit stairs for a variety of inappropriate reasons. If you’re really interested on the specifics, talk to some of the old guys at the Health Dept.
I challenge those of you mouthing off about “who OKed [sic] this permit” (John) and it being “butt ugly” (Margie & Steve). Though blogging gets the issue out there, please enlighten the ignorant masses on how you’re doing more than just pointing fingers at a NFP that struggles monetarily.
And for GOD’s SAKE, just because Hopewell increased their revenue from $700,000 to $7million does NOT mean that money can be used for managerial/structural/administrative costs (most grants do not allow for funding to go to “fixing up a building” and when almost 50% of their funding comes from Medicaid and Dept of Mental Health, you can be sure that money goes to program development, caseworkers, nurses, etc.). If you’re interested in their operating budget,
GO HERE. Or if you want to assist nonprofits, Visit the NonProfit Services Consortium’s site.
Talk is cheap. Make it useful in the movement towards ssessment, so that we may develop policy to be used in assurance models.
Just my $.02. I’m going back to my asthma kids now!!
^As stated by Hopewell’s CEO, “culture plays a pivotal role in shaping institutions, behaviors and values.” A culture (IMO) that steals from one to favor another is wrongheaded and reflects poorly on the community and its citizens. The attempt to denigrate others for criticism of this structure is to suggest that such institutions automatically has superior rights and therefore are above basic rules of accountability. Those who believe that good intent alone is suffficient to receive preferential treatment uses “cheap” logic at best and inevitably creates behaviors and values that should not be respected. I have no idea how the funds raised by the organization are spent (please provide that information if you will) and the reasons why it was necessary to build the steps as illustrated. Attempting to make others feel guilty because you think they are “ignorant” should be a call for help, not ridicule. Please help us understand why this happened, will you?
The stairwell is required per fire codes. Fire codes supercede a pedestrian right of way.
OK, let’s agree the structure is ugly.
But Hopewell Center provides very, very necessary services in a city that, we must admit, has many very low-income residents that cannot afford to pay for such services on their own.
$7 M isn’t really that much for an agency with 130 FT staff. That’s about $53k per employee in total budget, which means the average employee probably only gets paid about $30k — or perhaps less. CMHC’s are not exactly plush accommodations in which to work.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Glennon across the street is a very important institution, but look at the anti-urban design of their expansion across the street. They sacrified the cute little Shaw Bank building — used for years by the Health Department as a clinic — for their grand plans. Glennon no longer has a front door on Grand; you have to walk all the way around into the parking lot.
As for the property ownership issue: this staircase was clearly approved by the Board of Public Service (BPS), upon recommendation of the Street Director, as a public right-of-way encroachment, back on November 8, 2005. See:
http://stlcin.missouri.org/cityjournal/PDF/88_33_a.pdf
(page 33, middle column)
Maurice, you’re wrong. The fire code requires that the vertical exits for any structure be contained within the structure they serve, located on the lot being permitted and NOT obstruct the public right-of-way. From the International Building Code: “MEANS OF EGRESS: A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of any building or structure to a public way.” “PUBLIC WAY: A street, alley, or other parcel of land open to the outside air that has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and which has a clear width and height of not less than ten feet.” The city does have the discretionary power to allow the revocable, private use of its public right-of-way, as was done here, but a building owner doesn’t have an inherent right to use the right-of way for private/secure access, whether it’s to improve fire egress, to improve access for people with disabilities or to operate a sidewalk cafe! And as Ms. Homan pointed out, “people [were] sneaking into the building via the emergency exit stairs for a variety of inappropriate reasons”, thus the apparent need for the concrete block walls, steel doors and bright security lighting!
All that’s missing at the street level is a moat… All kidding aside, I encourage anyone designing in and around historic structures to look at http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/rhb/index.htm. Although these are only enforced on projects funded with historic tax credits (state and federal), they offer a good guideline for acceptable and appropriate alterations to such structures as this gem across from Cardinal Glennon.
I don’t know how the floor plans layout in this building, but adjusting some things and discharging this stair in through the parking lot and to the public right-of-way via a gate with panic hardware should have cost the same, if not less, than the CMU fortress (and been as secure).
Yes, Jim, but is that for new construction?
Has anyone contacted the designer to ask why they went with this? It would be interesting to see what instructions they received during the concieving stage.
Two issues are in play here, the building code and revocable permits. In most cases, a building must meet the building code in effect when it receives its certificate of occupancy. Once it does, its use is typically “grandfathered” until the use changes. In the case of this building, it was apparently built as an office building in the 1920’s (±) and would have had to comply with those codes as long as it continued as an office use (simplified explanation – many nuances possible). When the current owner converted the use of the structure from business offices to (I assume) a residential treatment clinic within the last few years, they had to comply with the more-stringent building code now in effect. This likely would have required either an enclosed or an exterior fire stair to either replace an existing unenclosed interior stair or to provide a second means of egress where none existed previously. And if you have (to have) two exit stairs, they need to be far enough apart so that they will not reasonably be blocked by the same emergency (fire, etc.). As we can see, they chose to add an exterior stair (functional and legal, but not pretty). Part two – The city has the power to grant a “revocable permit” for the use of its public right-of-way. Typically, there needs to be a valid reason on the part of a private entity for needing the public right-of-way and there needs to to be little or no impact to public’s continued use of its asset. My assumption is that the Hopewell Center made a persuasive argument that locating their program here provided a needed service to the city, placing the new fire stair on the north side was the most cost-effective way of complying with the current building code (and creating a safe environment for their client and staff), they had a limited budget, the remaining sidewalk area left adequate room for the current and future pedestrian needs in the area, this would help save a historic structure and that there were no subsurface utility conflicts. Was there “community” input? Probably not – the city’s neighborhood website says the webpage for this area hasn’t been updated since 1999 (most likely because there is no active organization). Were all the legal hurdles jumped thru? Apparently, yes. Bottom line, this discussion has covered all the bases – the stair’s legal, functional and not very attractive. The agency does good work and its presence will most likely mean the structure won’t change much long as Hopewell continues its programs here. It’s essentially a “draw” – it’s not great urban design on several levels, but also means that we don’t have another vacant lot or insipid commercial replacement structure . . .
As for instructions during the conceptual design stage, I can imagine that an engineer or architect was persuaded to provide discounted or free design services to a “struggling” non-profit, and that the conversation started out, “We don’t have any money but city is requiring that we add a second stair. They said they’d work with us on this, but it does need to meet code. What’s the bare minimum we can do to get by? How quickly can you get us something? And, oh, by the way, we need to make it very secure . . . ” As several posters pointed out, there are always multiple potential solutions, including ones that would look better and/or would be less intrusive on the public right-of-way. Some designers are more creative, motivated, invested (or not) than others. This was a pragmatic solution. It didn’t requiring cutting holes through floors. It met the building code requirements. It’s durable. It uses readily-available materials. It’s pretty secure. Bottom line, it works, it’s just not attractive!
Jim is likely correct in his analysis on how this transpired as it describes how lackadaisical code enforcement/permit approval works in this city. To think buried on pg 33 is a single entry about this encroachment speaks volumes on how minimal transparency benefits a private entity at the expense of the public. I suppose the final question that needs answering is how should such giveaways of public property be processed to insure accountablility, transparency and a chance for the public to be heard so as to avoid the destruction of public assets.
I don’t think non/not for profits should get a free pass to ruin our historic buildings. I can’t help to think about the other fire-exit fiasco the city was involved in awhile back at the Randall building across from the Macy’s downtown. They sealed his legal fire exit off so he would be forced to close and sell his historic building so they could tear it down….not sure what the status of that situation is currently.
For a solution that so obviously regards its surroundings as troublesome and requiring surveillance, they certainly did give some local spray paint artist a wonderful and accessible canvas…
Hey, I agree it doesn’t look great and I question if they really needed to take up as much (or any?) of the sidewalk that they did – I’m just trying to explain why things ended up like they did. Like others, I would’ve prefered a better solution (like in the parking lot on the east side), but I wasn’t a part of the process. What I’m trying to point out is that the real world (outside academia) isn’t perfect. Budgets need to be met, compromises need to be made, and more than we want to admit, too many people “in power” (aka, those with the responsibility of making decisions) simply don’t understand the need for quality design decisions and their impact on the built environment. I don’t “blame” the folks at Hopewell. They had a problem that needed to be solved. I put most of the blame on the designer who came up with this “solution” and I put secondary blame on the city’s process that allowed such a significant intrusion on the public right-of-way. How do we change this? With elected officials, it takes ongoing education, and if you’re lucky, getting people elected with a modicum of design sensitivity. With city staff, they’re limited, for both better and worse, to mostly not judging the aesthetic quality of a design, just its life-safety impacts. But for the biggest culprits, the professional designers who (should?) know better, I’m clueless. I am one, and there are times when serious compromises need to be be made to meet either budget and/or programatic requirements. We know better, but we’re ultimately held hostage by the golden rule (He who has the gold, rules.)