Two-Thirds of Readers Opposed Decision to Raze Cupples 7 Warehouse
No surprise in the poll last week, readers are opposed to the city razing the Cupples 7 warehouse building, here are the results from the poll last week:
Q: The city plans to raze Cupples 7; support or oppose?
- Strongly oppose 65 [44.52%]
- Oppose 31 [21.23%]
- Support 24 [16.44%]
- Unsure/No Answer 10 [6.85%]
- Strongly support 9 [6.16%]
- Neutral 7 [4.79%]
Nearly half “strongly opposed” to razing the building. If they’re like me, they’d risk collapse while holding out for a developer with deep pockets.
When we simplify the results the contrast becomes even stronger: two-thirds are opposed.
Yesterday I met with Treasurer Tishaura Jones and Cupples 7 was one of the topics we discussed. Per the previous treasurer, that office must buy the bank note on the property if the city demolishes the building. Jones told me they don’t have any definitive plans for the site once it is cleared. I suggested a transparent process to get the community involved in brainstorming ideas.
I want to see a building, not parking or green space.
— Steve Patterson
Yes, it certainly is “possible” to “save” Cupples 7. The Masonic Building in Denver was gutted by fire in 1984*, with just the outer walls left standing. Following the fire, the decision was made to stabilize the stone walls with exterior braces and a new steel structure was constructed inside: http://bethpartin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/masonic-building-16th-street-mall-denver-june-2009-400×266.jpg
The same challenges are in place here, the question is are there the same financial resources and the same political will to make it happen available here and now? Like you, I’d like to see the building “saved”, renovated and repurposed. What I don’t want to see is the city taking the lead, financially, in making it happen. The taxpayers simply can’t afford to save every old building that needs work, the private sector needs to be the leader. (If there’s a public need or use for the structure, like the central library, then sure, it’s a different story.)
*http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19840305&id=aTdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UjYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2844,6736262
You’d be willing to “risk collapse”…….!…..?…..! YOU ACTUALLY FEEL THAT WAY? And you reduced that thought to writing!!!!! Let’s hope you’re not tooling by in your motorized chair when it happens….or let’s hope one of your family members isn’t working on the crew that attempts to stabilize the structure when it happens. Stabilizing that structure won’t happen using robots. Human lives will be at risk. The life of just one of the bricklayers, carpenters, laborers and iron workers involved in stabilizing that building is obviously worth more than an entire city of Cupples buildings. Everything in moderation, Sir. The development company that held on to the property over the past several years without taking steps to protect the structure is the guilty party here, and that firm should be banned from ever doing business in the city of St. Louis forever…..and then some! I’ve personally witnessed partial building collapses involving bricklayers attempting to increase window opening dimensions when a wall was being restored. It’s not a pretty site. Even using a free-standing scaffold system, the scaffolding went down with the wall, taking 3 bricklayers and 1 hod carrier with it. All but one survived. Now was that worth it? Not on my conscience, sir! And certainly not on my watch.
OK, so if no one is coming forward to develop this and the city can’t afford to renovated it can they at least afford to stabilize the structure with braces and what-not like the Old North STL group is doing with houses in Old North? I realize that this is a larger undertaking and I’m not a structural engineer but I think it would be best to “keep it on ice” until a developer comes along.
For how long?! 2 years? 5 years? 20? 50? It’s already been vacant and decaying for a decade. And once we do this one, how many others do we “keep on ice”? A developer “came along” in 2005, and this is what we have. I get it, we want to save our history, and these are (were?) great structures. But much like we can’t take every available rural parcel and “make it a park”, we can’t take every urban structure and “keep it on ice”. Unfortunately, it does boil down to use it or lose it . . . . unless we all want to live in a musty museum . . . .
Obviously we have to be selective of which buildings to preserve, we can’t preserve every one. I’d say that given this building’s historical significance, it’s *very* visible location, & the fact that it is the last of a set of buildings which have all been renovated I’d say this should be preserved. The city should at least stabilize it until it finds another developer. It might take a few years but in the end it’d be worthwhile.
Let’s say it’s a million dollars to stabilize this one building. Let’s say for the same $ million, you could stabilize 20 buildings in Old North. Which would you rather do? Personally, I’d rather see more historic preservation in neighborhoods and more new construction downtown, so I’d pick the Old North option. So there!
Let’s get an actual estimate (as opposed to one you pulled out of…. thin air) and then we’ll talk.
Actually, Scott, there is an actual estimate “out there”. It’s $4 to $8 Million dollars! Why the range? It’s simple: the building has been ignored and treated like a forgotten stepson for years, and the elements have destroyed it. Roof and floor joists have either fallen out of their pockets due to rot, or entire joists have rotted in place, offering no lateral support, and exist in place solely out of habit! The masonry walls have absorbed moisture over the years, frozen, shifted, frozen and shifted again, and the result is misaligned masonry units separated by dead mortar. When the mortar is dead, you can lift out a brick by either ever-so-slightly tapping it with a hammer, or simply by grabbing the brick with your hand and picking it up! If the building were 1 or 2 levels, the degree of difficulty would be different. But given the height of the building and its current condition, it’s dangerous to get close enough to even properly evaluate the damage, let alone to set up piles, scaffolding and shoring to ATTEMPT to stabilize. But the real price for attempting to save this building is the potential for the loss of human life. And there’s no building worth that!
Here’s what a Beacon article by Michael Allen says (Urban Review won’t allow the link to post):
“First, the amount of public money that will go into the demolition of Cupples 7 is incredible: As much as $1.7 million could be spent to create a vacant lot. The Building Division estimates that $660,000 will be spent demolishing the venerable timber-and-brick structure. That amount is not offered for stabilization.
On top of that, the office of City Treasurer Tishaura Jones wants to spent $850,000 to buy the mortgage on the property from lender Montgomery Bank, and as much as $250,000 to grade and seed the cleared site. Jones’ predecessor entered into the deal in 2011 to prevent a parking lot from going on the site and competing with an adjacent Treasurer’s Office-owned parking garage.”
So that million dollar figured pulled out of the air is not far off. So back to those tradeoffs….
Whaddya say, Scott? Stabilize 20 buildings in Old North or 1 downtown?
Don’t confuse “stabilization” with “demolition” or with “renovation”.
Good point. Most stabilizations happen as part of a renovation. Stabilization for stabilization’s sake hardly ever happens because there’s no money for it. What good does it do to stabilize a building that might get demoed anyway, or not demo a hundred buildings that need it at the cost of stabilizing one on the possibility it might someday get renovated. Getting back to those practical issues, it’s all about choices and priorities. And everyone sees things differently.
That quote says it’s a million (well, $1.7 million) dollars to demolish, purchase, grade and seed the property. Again…demolish, not stabilize.
To stabilize, as Mike mentioned, could cost anywhere from $4-$8 million, per some reports on STLToday or Business Journal.
Sadly, this building is, as some would say, “demolition ready,” and I don’t expect anyone could step up to save anything more than the Clark Street facade (which would be fantastic!), but a full-scale rehab is cost-prohibitive and, as others have noted, potentially life-threatening.
This is an opportunity to think of what could have been and reflect on why it isn’t. The simple answer is that a developer was able to purchase a building in perilous condition and sit on it for over a decade with little-to-no pressure from the local government to fix it up…or even execute simple remediation standards.
Cupples 7 will likely be leveled at month’s end. If the City really cares about preserving structures here (rather than lamenting their inevitable loss as it issues the demolition permit), it will establish rules, ordinances and meaningful consequences for those property owners that allow this to happen going forward.
Disquis comment system sometimes flags link as spam, I have no problem with non-spam links.
Back up 5 or 7 years, and your rationale and argument would have been on the mark. But conditions changed over that time frame because 1)the developer didn’t spend a few grand to block water from entering the structure and 2) the city didn’t force them to do it and 3) the lending institution didn’t have the foresight and experience to force the issue. It’s water under the bridge. But be sure that the water is long gone!
Wow you people sure are passionate about demolishing this building.
No, Scott, we’re practical. Speaking of being practical, you’ve never responded to that tradeoff question: $1,000,000 to stabilize 20 buildings in Old North (or maybe we should up that number to 3-4X that), or all that money into stabilizing one downtown building? Again, if I had a choice, I’d put the money into neighborhood preservation. Downtown has had more than its share of help for the past 20 years. It’s time to spread the wealth.
According to what I’m reading here the city is going to spend $1.7 million to demolish Cupples 7 anyway so it’s not as simple as you say. $1.7 to demolish vs $4-8 million (according to Mike) to stabilize.
Look, I see your point: the city has spent millions making downtown (especially Washington Ave) into a playground for “creative class” types while leaving impoverished neighborhoods to crumble.
I’m not saying that I support stabilizing Cupples but not the other neighborhoods. I’m just saying that I support stabilizing Cupples. I also support the revitalization efforts on Cherokee, the Grove, in Old North, etc.
If all the city had was $1 Million to spend then yes, the fair thing to do would be to fix up the worst off neighborhoods–stabilize buildings, fix sidewalks & streets, etc. What I’m saying is that if the city is going to spend a ton of money on tearing this building down they might as well spend some more stabilizing it. It sounds like leaving it be as it is is no longer an option.
The city is broke. All of these choices come at the expense of other priorities. Putting millions into stabilizing Cupples takes millions from other priorities. That’s a fact. Downtown is recovered. Places like Cherokee need a lot more help.
For the overall good of the city, is a million of public investment on Cherokee a better investment than a million to stabilize Cupples? That’s the question I pose to all those who’d stabilize Cupples. Yes it is that black and white.
Until some angel investor starts pouring free money into STL, we’re stuck with these lousy choices.
Buildings in smaller neighborhoods already have a good chance of being brought back. Its the big pieces of the puzzle that are worth fighting for. The Cupples building will be stunning like its neighbors if given the chance. Downtowns are meant to be the crowning jewel of a city. All our energies should go towards the core first. Every neighborhood will benefit from a stronger downtown.
And I doubt that collapse is imminent. We would have seen a sensational news report if even a part of say the cornice had fallen off. It stood through the wild winds and winter storms but a legally motivated deadline may just be the thing to destroy its chances of a future.
Totally disagree. If that were true, there’d be more going on in neighborhoods. Weak market neighborhoods (a big chunk of the city east and west of Grand and north of Delmar) have a very hard time justifying rehab costs versus market values. Slumlords take over and the race to the bottom is on. Visit the Ville. Visit Hyde Park. Visit Texas Avenue in Benton Park West. “Every neighborhood” is not benefiting from the advances of downtown. That sounds good, but it’s far from true.
We’re not thinking clearly here, folks. Cupples will be demo’d precisely because it IS downtown. Downtown is our window to the world. We can’t afford collapsing vacant buildings in the heart of our downtown. It’s bad for our image and perception. It has to go. What should happen is the city condemns the building for demo and orders it down by x date. if that date passes with no action, the city carries out the demo and liens the property for the cots. The city demands payment on that lien. If the owner fails to pay, the city gets a judge to order a sale of the property to pay off the lien. If the there aren’t enough sales proceeds to pay off the lien, the city takes the property or the short sale proceeds and gets a deficiency judgement against the owner. Period. End of story. TIme to quit coddling these people.
Compared to 10 years ago, there has been remarkable development in several neighborhoods mostly by smaller scale developments and there is no doubt in my mind that will continue. Very few developers have the pockets to undertake large projects like the Cupples which is what makes these large projects the focus of my concerns.
I will point out again that even though the interior has collapsed, the exterior walls remain standing THROUGH STRONG STORMS. Does that sound like danger of imminent collapse to you? You may benefit from actually visiting the area and looking at the Cupples building. You cannot tell from the outside what has happened inside. I dont think a single brick has fallen off.
I maintain that every neighborhood will benefit from a stronger downtown. Those that have seen the most disinvestment may see the slowest recovery but eventually all surrounding areas will benefit.
If your black&white attitude had been applied to every historic building, there would be no fox theatre, peabody opera house, Old north, Lafayette square etc etc. I dont get the impatience. turnaround of cities takes a lot of time. Tearing down every ‘eye sore’ is shortsighted and leaves us with a much less impressive future city. consider the riverfront and Mill Creek Valley, the classic eye-sore cleanup stories.
It’s a question of quantity (large) and resources (limited). No one likes to tear down buildings just for the sake of tearing things down. The city has a fundamental duty to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. In many cases, it does cost less to secure a building than it does to tear it down. But much like the case with the collapse of the candy building next to the Eads Bridge, after a point, deteriorating, large brick structures in urban areas DO create an increasing hazard to surrounding streets and sidewalks. Traditional brick construction relies and gravity and bracing for stability. Mortar is NOT magic glue, mortar allows bricks to distribute the loads they carry evenly. Lose the mortar and you end up with an increasingly unstable pile of heavy chunks of dried clay. Lose the diagonal bracing that the heavy timbers provide(d) and you get an increasingly wiggly wall. Just because it looks solid and hasn’t fallen down, yet, doesn’t mean that it isn’t in increasingly imminent danger of doing so. If it’s so important to save this (and every other old vacant brick structure), you write the check(s) or you assemble the financing to do so. I expect my city government to spend my taxes wisely, not to invest millions just “saving” stuff . . .
“A rising tide lifts all boats.” — JFK
Hyde Park? McRee Town? Fairground? Where’s the evidence downtown progress in the last ten years has improved those areas? McRee Town was erased for a new neighborhood, Hyde Park is circling the drain (except for a few projects, overall the area is in freefall, especially north of the park), and Fairground? Where’s Fairground. I’m guessing most readers here have never set foot in the Fairground neighborhood.
I’ve been to Fairground often, used to live not far away in the early 1990s. Beautiful park, posted about it years ago.
What we don’t know is where the neighborhoods would be today if downtown was left as it was 10-15 years ago. I doubt we’d see the interest in the neighborhoods or city that we see today.
Early ’90s is a long time ago. Fairground has lost population in the last two censuses. More buildings have been demolished. Many are on the vacant list and will probably fall. Downtown has improved. Fairground has gone in the opposite direction. Someone in this thread is trying to make the case that stabilizing Cupples will have a positive effect on neighborhoods. Where’s the proof of that? The whole city has lost population over the past twenty years while downtown has grown. So goes the whole “rising tide” argument. The truth is, downtown has advocates all over the region. Most neighborhoods aren’t so lucky.
In that case where is the evidence that demolition of a historic ‘eyesore’ improves a declining neighborhood
Actually, Scott. I’m not passionate about demo vs restoration. And I’m not convinced that the building is all that extraordinary. But because of the building’s condition, decisions about its future should consider the potential for collapse and loss of life. Talk with a demo company official. He’ll tell you that even tearing down the building will be difficult and time-consuming, given its location and condition.
How about a controlled implosion? Wouldn’t that be the safest and fastest method?
There’s a post-tensioned concrete garage next door. There’s an occupied condo across the street. Implosions create their own problems. Adjacent structures seldom escape unharmed. But anything is possible. It would be the demo contractor’s choice. If it were my project, I’d do a lot of selective demolition, by hand, in an effort to save the brick and to maintain order on such a small site….and to protect the adjacent structures…..and especially to protect the demo crew.
Hickok called demolition “the penalty we must pay for permitting blight and decay to set in.” Spoken today? Nope….in 1958 when Busch Stadium was built amid the blight and decay of downtown. Here is the link: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/look-back/a-look-back-in-new-busch-stadium-was-a-tub/article_7d21a83c-b411-5e1f-ac4c-7f9b2f3c3228.html
History does indeed repeat itself.
Indeed. Much of North St. Louis has been demolished for this exact reason. People like to point fingers at people like Paul McKee, but the problem of blight and decay came way before Paul McKee. McKee is like the scavenger clearing the rotted remains.
To put things in context, “it’s a million (well, $1.7 million) dollars to demolish, purchase, grade and seed the property.” and “could cost anywhere from $4-$8 million” to stabilize and mothball the structure. In contrast, it cost around $20 million to construct each of our new rec centers. The city has finite resources. The city has significant pension liabilities and deferred maintenance. The city has many vacant and/or old buildings. The city has to make choices, it has to live within a budget. Money is not unlimited. If we spend, say, $3 million to “save” Cupples 7, we won’t be able to buy and equip 60 new police cars to replace ones that have worn out. If we spend $3 million on this one structure, we won’t be able to do leaf pickup in the fall.
I get it, this (and many other) structure(s) is/are very important to lovers of old buildings and the urban fabric. I get it, it “deserves” to be saved, it has historic merit. I get it, a grassy or paved lot is a poor substitute. But I also believe that the city has a duty to preserve the public’s health and safety (which would be at risk when, not if, the structure collapses) and the city has to use its limited resources wisely. With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, the city “should” have taken possession years ago and invested in keeping the structure watertight – that would have been eminently affordable and a worthy use of public funds. But we are where we are NOW, and I simply can’t justify spending $3 million + on this, in hopes that some altruistic dreamer comes along at some time in the future with the big checkbook that will be needed to put something, anything, inside these massive-but-stabilized walls.
Sometimes it seems lovers of old buildings are wearing rose colored glasses when presented with these hard facts of life. Watch the online videos of the recent Ways and Means hearings of the Board of Aldermen. People are asking questions about maintaining the Velodrome or funding for rec centers when the city budget wonks are describing pension liabilities and funding for operating the police department. To have a real dialogue on the future of the city, especially with regard to spending public dollars, people have to look at everything, not just their pet projects/special interests.
Well that may be true JZ, but at the time it should have been saved by the City, the building or other buildings in good, re-sellable condition and then you get the naysayers stepping up and crying ‘my taxes are too high and it’s because the City (or pick your gov entity) is wasting money doing a private enterprise duty instead of just concentrating on say, public safety.’
Then there are the funding sources….say in your example the rec centers. All gov. funding and most non-profit grants are very specific and do not allow shifting.
The ‘idea’ of the LDA is good, but in my opinion they wait too long before they take procession of property for the ‘public good’.
LDA?
sorry…meant LRA…Land Reutilization Authority
I have never, ever seen so much dissent on this website. If things keep up, it won’t be as easy to predict the outcome of the polls.
My two cents: The building needs to come down. It will not be redeveloped. The one thing I truly enjoy about this site is all of the “pie in the sky” that the dreamers see. The truth is, that if everything that preservationist want saved was saved we would be broke and there would be a bunch of derelict buildings.
I had a class in college, I am not sure what class it was, and we talked about how ancient cities just disappeared. Someone in the class said that that would not happen in America. I suggested that it had not happened…yet. Look at Detroit. We have more similarities than differences with that burgh. I do not think that downtown is ripe for investment. That being the case, wouldn’t it be better to choose battles worth fighting. Instead, we have a 32 comment debate over the feasibility of saving a collapsing warehouse with zero architectural significance to average folk beyond the fact that it is old.
Why not focus on stable and significant? What is the point of saving something just for the sake of saving it. And, the “slippery slope” argument does not work on account of all of the buildings that have been saved downtown over the last 10-15 years.
“I suggested a transparent process to get the community involved in brainstorming ideas.” — What was her response to this suggestion?