The Dawn of a New Day for Grand and Gravois
“The Dawn of a New Day for Grand and Gravois” proudly proclaimed the brochure for the January 5th, 1929 opening of the South Side National Bank. The art deco building was constructed during 1928 to serve as the new home for the combined South Side Bank and Farmers and Merchants Trust as it became the South Side National Bank.
South Side was formed in 1891 by Adolphus Busch. The bank had originally been located at Broadway & Pestalozzi, a logical location next to the family brewery. By the late 20s many depositors lived in the then new neighborhoods further West of the brewery. Southside merged with the Farmers and Merchants Trust that had moved into their new structure on the SE corner of Grand & Gravois in 1914. It was decided a new building was necessary to serve the growing city.
The Southwest corner of Grand & Gravois was selected for the new structure, replacing a popular tavern. By the time the bank opened the #70 Grand streetcar line was popular and well traveled.
Looking West down Gravois. Note the streetcar tracks & overhead line. Also note the bike to the right of the main entry. Given the cars I’d say this is a late 1940s image.
The above dates to the late 1950s as January 1960 was the last run of the Grand streetcar. Above we see a PCC Streetcar heading North. In the first part of the 20th Century the intersection urbanized as did each Grand and Gravois. Down Grand was a new Sears. In all directions were goods and services.
A 1960 photo looking north along Grand in the book Streets & Streetcars of St Louis by Andrew D. Young shows the Northeast corner as a gas station but the Northwest corner still had 2-story urban storefront buildings intact (p128). Over the latter part of the 20th Century the area de-urbanized with White Castle taking up residence on the formerly urban Northwest corner.
In 2000 the bank announced its intention to sell the property to Walgreen’s which would raze the structure in favor of their suburban prototype. Many of us were vocally upset. Meetings were held down the street at Al Smith’s Feasting Fox at Grand & Meramec. It was at these meetings that I first met now State Rep Mike Daus, Ald Craig Schmid, Christian Saller (a 2007 candidate for Alderman) and then private citizen Jennifer Florida.
We held protests and did everything legally possible to stop the sale and demolition. It worked, the demolition permit request was withdrawn. The future of the building was still very much uncertain.
Jennifer Florida, who was out front in the opposition to demolition, was elected alderman in 2001, succeeding Marge Vining by narrowly defeating Mike Daus. Florida continued to work hard to secure the future of the building. The bank was bought out by Allegiant Bank who agreed to donate the building and land to a neighborhood not-for-profit, Grand-Oak Hill. At least the building was safe from demolition, however, it was also now vacant as Allegiant had a newer banking facility down Grand near Ted Drewes.
The remaining vintage buildings at this important intersection became part of a small historic district. My friend Lyyn Josse, then with Landmarks Association, prepared the nomination for the building to the National Register of Historic Places. Listing on the national register affords no legal protection against demolition but it makes getting historic rehab tax credits much easier.
After a few years in limbo West End Realty and The Lawrence Group had a plan for the building – 13 condos in the tower with commercial uses in the base. In 2006 construction began in earnest. Today, renovations are finished. While a tenant hasn’t been found for the spectacular banking lobby, several smaller spaces have commercial enterprises and eight of the condos are occupied. Which brings me to my sales pitch. I’m pleased to report that The Lawrence Group selected Circa Properties to represent them in finding the last five buyers for the condo. Myself and co-agent Leigh Maibes are the listing agents.
- Artist rendering of Grand & Gravois courtesy of The Lawrence Group.
On a personal note I’m glad to see more and more buildings like this become adapted for residential use. Even though the recovery following my February stroke is going well I don’t see myself ever living again in a place with even a single step to enter. Once you’ve had one stroke the odds of a repeat increase. I like downtown living but not everyone likes to live in a downtown context. The South Side Tower offers urban living in a setting surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The more living spaces we have with accessible entrances the better!
The area will, I believe, continue to urbanize. The Lawrence Group owns the balance of the historic buildings at this major intersection. In time we’ll hopefully see these renovated. They’ve also looked at new construction on the excess parking lot facing both Grand and Gravois. Once all their plans are completed the intersection will have come full circle.
If you’ve not seen these units plan to stop by this coming Saturday & Sunday as you are on your way to (or leaving) the Tower Grove Farmers’ Market or the International Institute’s Festival of Nations in Tower Grove Park. One of us will be there Saturday & Sunday between 1pm-3pm. The bike rack is located at the back off the parking lot. Lock up and come to the West entrance to get buzzed up to see the two furnished displays (5E & 4W).
All five are two bedroom one bath units of 1,114-1,123 sq. ft. Prices range from $166,900 to $199,900 (finishes & views vary). View all 10 of my listings for photos and more detail. The developer’s website at southsidetower.net includes more images as well as floor plans for the units. Eighty years after the building was constructed I think we are again at The Dawn of a New Day for Grand and Gravois.
It should be noted that citizen involvement was the first step to the preservation of this building. The “Grand and Gravois Coalition” led the way. National City then donated the building to the Grand Oak Hill Community Corporation. Without community based support, the good things happening now would not have been possible. This project is the result of a long term, public/private partnership.
Wow. That rendering makes it all look so clean and inviting.
I understand why people would prefer this structure to a bland Walgreens, but if you want to protect the property, put your money together and buy it. Then put forth the funds to maintain and restore such an old structure. Then try to find tenants to occupy the floors and offices.
In other words, if you want to tell someone what to do with their property, buy from them it and do it yourself.
I’m so tired of people giving the buy it yourself line.
Good luck to you. Whenever I hear Grand and Gravois brought up in conversation, it’s always about places we wouldn’t go to at night. I hope this project brings a turn-around to that area.
I’m so glad to see this building brought back to life.
.
I just wish there weren’t so many fast food drive thrus separating it from the heart of South Grand.
That’s just fantastic, Jesda. Thanks.
“I’m so tired of people giving the buy it yourself line.”
.
tell me about it. how many times do we have to go over this: property ownership does not give the owner absolute authority over its use because its use in turn effects the surrounding community. if you want to open a bank in the middle of a desert somewhere and then sell it to walgreens, fine. if you want to open a bank in the middle of a neighborhood and then sell it to walgreens, the neighborhood better want a walgreens.
First of all, this is a great project.
.
Second of all, “buy it yourself” may not be what we want to hear, but in St. Louis, it has been, by far, the most effective way of preserving buildings. The blogs and message boards may make it easier to save buildigns in the long run, but here and now your best bet is to do it yourself.
Clearly, Otto, the best way is to do it yourself, just like the best way to pay for your family member’s medical expenses for a lengthy illness is to ‘simply’ become a millionaire and pay for it yourself. We know that. It’s no revelation, but thanks again. Some people are preoccupied with, you know, jobs and families and such, and expressing a desire to see urban improvements based upon the best possible strategy (preserve our history and build back to it’s precedent with progressive architecture and planning) is where the process often begins. The expression of citizen interest in preservation of irreplaceable history shows the need for property owners to pay attention to their neighborhood and understand the value of their holdings.
john w.,
.
I appreciate your “raise people’s awareness” strategy. I just think in St. Louis it’s been a dismal failure to this point. Hopefully things are changing.
.
My point is simply that 2 or 3 dedicated developers can save a lot more buildings than a few hundred well-intentioned people sitting at home on the Internet.
Steve, you guys did a great a job on this one (unfortunately, we weren’t so fortunate on the 7 or 8 other Walgreens). I’m just saying we need more of your “right developers” to complete jobs like this.
Just got done with looking at the listing, not my thing personally, although I love the top shelf work the Lawrence Group does. I was so ready to buy a place from them in the marquette before life went all haywire with May Co. being absorbed by Macy’s. Thank Goodness I left before being forced out by the closing of Macy’s Midwest.
.
You know I was riveted with that place up by Crown Candy. God I love that structure, just still a little shaky about the neighborhoood. Sorry, can’t get past that. Plus I really think for the money some off-street parking would be nice, but I don’t want to get you started on your love of the automobile, or anyone else for that matter.
.
As an aside Jesda, why are you so negative? Even in Chesterfield, which you seem to love, you cannot do whatever you want. Here is how the Chesterfield Historical Commission sees itself:
.
Their purpose is,” to promote the history of Chesterfield, preserve historic landmarks, and to help educate citizens on the community’s rare treasures and past events. Ongoing projects include research on century-old homes, inventory of cemeteries, placement of markers, and an annual historic calendar.”
.
Sometimes educatation is the part a person plays in an event, other times action, whatever it may be, even Chesterfield, your part of St. Louis, recognizes history as important. Kudos to whomever thought this area valuable and took the time to do something. I myself don’t see it, but I am glad it is not up to me, because I tend to value something only after it is gone.
I went back to the listing, sorry, it does have off-street parking. I am unsure what i read at first?? Very nice place.
As one of those folks with libertarian leanings, I’m one of those people who says if you don’t own it, you don’t control it. I’m also one of those people who firmly believes that not every old building can or should be saved. That said, I’m glad that this building was both saved and that a viable reuse has been found for it – it’s a great example of commercial architecture from the period and a critical part of the urban landscape.
.
I guess that I’m also more prone to support efforts to prevent the demolition of significant vacant structures than I am to say no, you can’t build something newer, more dense and/or “different” on land that you own, as long as it complies with current rules and regulations. The “make it a park” argument rarely carries much weight!
.
There area several issues at play when it comes to “preserving” older structures. One, tastes change – buildings fall out of style and come back into style – they’re most vulnerable when they’re at the bottom of their cycle. Two, buildings serve one fundamental purpose, they enclose space that humans use to live, work, learn, recreate or to store stuff. If they don’t serve one of those uses, it becomes increasingly hard to find the money to do the maintenance necessary to keep them safe and liveable – reuse is a critical component of preservation. And three, old does not necessarily equal special or valuable. There are plenty of older buildings that weren’t great, special, or even very good when they were new. Just because they’ve acquired some patina does nothing to justfy patching them together beyond their useful life. The corollary to this, however, is the need to maintain the bulk and the rhythm of the urban streetscape, and parking lots don’t cut it – tear down an obsolete building and replace it with one of similar bulk, proportions, material and detailing, don’t just excrete some stand suburban prototype into an existing urban streetscape!
.
The other part of the larger discussion is the need to craft appropriate laws, rules and regulations, that balance the community’s desire to preserve it’s urban fabric and architectural history with the needs of property owners to plan for the present and future uses of the properties. We need to be proactive and to think through what we want, and to make sure that what’s “on the books” actually will do what we want the government to do. Reactionary efforts can be successful in certain cases, but it’s much better to be ‘ahead of the curve”. Discretion can be a useful tool, too, but too many times it becomes an excuse for eroding needed controls, all in the name of chasing sales taxes. Unfortunately, too many times, the lowest common denominator becomes the de facto standard for all new work.
Jim Zavist writes: “tear down an obsolete building and replace it with one of similar bulk, proportions, material and detailing, don’t just excrete some stand suburban prototype into an existing urban streetscape!”
If the old buildings weren’t great to begin with and should not be preserved, why should their not-so-great mass, material, detailing (!) and proportions be simulated?
It gets into the value of historic districts versus historic structures. A city is made up of both individual buildings and the larger context that they occupy. To use this corner as an example, you have two sides where the old buildings are pulled up to the street edge in the traditional urban model, while the other two corners have “suburban” style parking lots with buildings set way back from the sidewalk. They’re both “answers” to what the city should look like. My point was that the transition from an urban to a suburban feel completely changes the look and feel of the corner. I have no idea what the Walgreens and the gas station replaced, but as with much of the city, the urban context has apparently changed significantly. If Walgreens had been built next to the sidewalk, even if it were “new”, the feel of the street would be much different with essentially the same box of a building. The fundamental question then becomes one of where is the suburban acceptable or even appropriate, and where should we, as urban residents, push to keep the urban feel that attracted us to the city in the first place?
.
In any urban district or neighborhood, you’ll find structures that contribute a lot to the quality and the feel of a neighborhood, and some that can best be classified as placeholders. My imprecise statement was meant to say that the new structures should build on the best of what makes the rest of the neighborhood desirable, not, for example, to replace a Burger Chef with an In-and-Out. Further up Grand, across from the City Diner, a new bank building was recently completed. I wouldn’t call it great architecture, but I would call it appropriate for maintaining the existing streetscape. Is it better the the building it replaced? I don’t know, but I do know that it’s much more appropriate than a surface parking lot.