Thoughts on Cupples #7
A week ago the St. Louis Preservation Board unanimously upheld the staff denial of a demolition permit for the Cupples 7 building. Had Mary “One” Johnson still been on the board there would have been one vote in favor of demolition. Â But enough about her…
Demolition was a moot point, owners Kevin McGowan & Nat Walsh couldn’t afford to demolish the building even if they were given the permit to do so. This was about liability, specifically the transfer of liability. Should the building collapse, damaging adjacent properties, they can say they tried to remove the hazard but were denied the right to do so. A clever move to absolve themselves of responsibility.
Well, at least an attempt to absolve responsibility. However, I’m not quick to forgive and forget. How did we get to this point? In 2000 when Bank of America owned several of the Cupples buildings a tank collapsed causing a hole in the roof of #7. The hole was known five years later when McGowan & Walsh bought three of the warehouses, including #7. They attempted to tarp over the roof, right?
Wrong, they did nothing! Water poured in a small hole in the roof for five years prior to their ownership causing structural damage to get to the point where it is today — which is mostly in the basement. They’ve been irresponsible owners for years and now they are maneuvering to blame the city if this historic structure collapses.
The city certainly has failed, I’ve had to resolve issues like peeling paint or end up in court! Where has the city been? They condemned the structure in 2008 and that then did…nothing. Everyone has been covering their own ass, but nobody has been trying to stabilize the building.
Can we all work together to find a way to support the exterior walls for future use? Not you Kevin and Nat, stay out of the picture — let Montgomery Bank foreclose on the mortgage or the city for back taxes.
– Steve Patterson
In 1983, in Denver, an arguably more-architecturally-significant structure, a bit smaller than Cupples #7, was gutted in a multi-alarm fire. Its facade was saved, externally braced, and a new office building constructed inside the facade, and the structure remains occupied today (with the braces removed): http://www.albertpike117.com/forms/Masonic%20Temple%20Building.pdf IF there were the political will AND the financing available, something similar COULD also happen here. But much like the candy building that used to be next to the Eads Bridge, it takes money, and a lot of it, to save old, failing buildings. The challenge with Cupples #7 is that it’s not particularily unique (looking much like the other Cupples warehouses); its biggest loss (if it were demolished) would be one of context, since whatever would replace it would likely look significantly different.
In 1983, in Denver, an arguably more-architecturally-significant structure, a bit smaller than Cupples #7, was gutted in a multi-alarm fire. Its facade was saved, externally braced, and a new office building constructed inside the facade, and the structure remains occupied today (with the braces removed): http://www.albertpike117.com/forms/Masonic%20Temple%20Building.pdf IF there were the political will AND the financing available, something similar COULD also happen here. But much like the candy building that used to be next to the Eads Bridge, it takes money, and a lot of it, to save old, failing buildings. The challenge with Cupples #7 is that it’s not particularily unique (looking much like the other Cupples warehouses); its biggest loss (if it were demolished) would be one of context, since whatever would replace it would likely look significantly different.
Steve, I agree with your post in principle. However, the reality is the city doesn’t have resources for everything. Like your sidewalk post, you are willing to jump on the city for not expanding city funds/taxpayer dollars. My bet is that most city residents will not prioritize this building. So where do you from here? I don’t know, but the city should start talking to the bank if they haven’t already. The City and Bank can take this building anytime they want. However, it is the banks that are holding ever increasing reserves of cash after the credit market collapsed.
Â
Steve, I agree with your post in principle. However, the reality is the city doesn’t have resources for everything. Like your sidewalk post, you are willing to jump on the city for not expanding city funds/taxpayer dollars. My bet is that most city residents will not prioritize this building. So where do you from here? I don’t know, but the city should start talking to the bank if they haven’t already. The City and Bank can take this building anytime they want. However, it is the banks that are holding ever increasing reserves of cash after the credit market collapsed.
The Treasurer has the funds to invest into the building. Parking revenues are separate from general revenues. It never should have gotten to this point.
I agree, “The Treasurer has the funds to invest into the building.” The questions are why should he and for what purpose? Seriously, why is this building any more deserving of city preservation resources? And, if it were to become city property, what would the city use it for? The city already owns hundreds of other properties for which there are few buyers. If there were any interest in the private sector, don’t you think that the bank would already be taking title and selling it as an asset?
I do agree that the city has failed miserably in enforcing basic maintenance and building codes, here and on similar buildings. Demolition by neglect is a classic response to unwanted historic designations, especially when demolition plans are denied. With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, yes, absolutely, both BofA and McGowan & Walsh SHOULD have been required to secure the building and kept it watertight. That was then, this now – what should happen now, today? Get a temporary roof installed? Seize it for back taxes and fines and auction it off with no reserve? Concede defeat and tear it down? Or do as you suggest, let the city take ownership, stabilize the walls and hope that someone will buy the shell sometime in the next 5-20 years? What’s that gonna cost? $300K? $500K? How many firefighters is that? 4? 6? 8? 10? Or, how many park renovations? We are a city of finite resources and many needs. We simply can’t afford to fund every citizen’s quixotic quest for the 1920’s.
The Treasurer has the funds to invest into the building. Parking revenues are separate from general revenues. It never should have gotten to this point.
I would agree Steve. I would think the treasurer and his fondness for parking has a prime opportunity for an upscale parking garage. Then maybe he can give up (sell) some of the surface lots for some structures.
I would agree Steve. I would think the treasurer and his fondness for parking has a prime opportunity for an upscale parking garage. Then maybe he can give up (sell) some of the surface lots for some structures.
I agree, “The Treasurer has the funds to invest into the building.” The questions are why should he and for what purpose? Seriously, why is this building any more deserving of city preservation resources? And, if it were to become city property, what would the city use it for? The city already owns hundreds of other properties for which there are few buyers. If there were any interest in the private sector, don’t you think that the bank would already be taking title and selling it as an asset?
I do agree that the city has failed miserably in enforcing basic maintenance and building codes, here and on similar buildings. Demolition by neglect is a classic response to unwanted historic designations, especially when demolition plans are denied. With the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, yes, absolutely, both BofA and McGowan & Walsh SHOULD have been required to secure the building and kept it watertight. That was then, this now – what should happen now, today? Get a temporary roof installed?  Seize it for back taxes and fines and auction it off with no reserve? Concede defeat and tear it down? Or do as you suggest, let the city take ownership, stabilize the walls and hope that someone will buy the shell sometime in the next 5-20 years? What’s that gonna cost? $300K? $500K? How many firefighters is that? 4? 6? 8? 10? Or, how many park renovations? We are a city of finite resources and many needs. We simply can’t afford to fund every citizen’s quixotic quest for the 1920’s.
I get the feeling the demolition permit was denied because it was a more politically popular decision than another rubber-stamped demolition, especially when awareness of historic preservation grew with recent efforts to save structures like the San Luis, Del Taco/Phillips 66, and Pevely buildings. Â That said, I’m sure it will be torn down as soon as the city finds a way to make it happen. Â I’m sure the Treasurer’s Office will buy the building, demolish it, and turn it into a parking lot and/or garage. Â Now might be a great time to mention again that the city treasurer is about as corrupt as it gets, but even with recent stories in the P-D and on TV highlighting the many wrongdoings within that office, nothing gets done and the mayor can do nothing about it. Â So the hopes of changing the way things are done in the Treasurer’s Office, at least until there’s another election, are about as slim as a chance to save Cupples 7.
Exterior bracing to save building facades has been done many times before with much success. Â The facade of the former Filene’s flagship in downtown Boston still stands even though a plan to preserve it and build a high-rise on its site fell through, so a future development can still incorporate the facade of the historic former department store. Â And speaking of department stores, the facade of the former Watt and Shand flagship in downtown Lancaster, Pennsylvania was preserved and it was incorporated into the city’s convention hotel and convention center. Â I also read recently of a similar effort to preserve historic building facades in Cincinnati. Â So it can be done, but the question is, who has the money to do it? Â I don’t see any developers coming forward to buy the building and take on the project. Â And while I agree the city doesn’t have the funds to preserve the facade, I am pretty sure they wouldn’t do it anyway, not when the treasurer sees another potential cash cow and has the money to purchase and demolish it. Â We may not be able to preserve every building, but there is still a mindset among too many city leaders that consider these buildings disposable, even when the built environment is one of the main qualities that separates St. Louis from other major American cities.
I get the feeling the demolition permit was denied because it was a more politically popular decision than another rubber-stamped demolition, especially when awareness of historic preservation grew with recent efforts to save structures like the San Luis, Del Taco/Phillips 66, and Pevely buildings. That said, I’m sure it will be torn down as soon as the city finds a way to make it happen. I’m sure the Treasurer’s Office will buy the building, demolish it, and turn it into a parking lot and/or garage. Now might be a great time to mention again that the city treasurer is about as corrupt as it gets, but even with recent stories in the P-D and on TV highlighting the many wrongdoings within that office, nothing gets done and the mayor can do nothing about it. So the hopes of changing the way things are done in the Treasurer’s Office, at least until there’s another election, are about as slim as a chance to save Cupples 7.
Exterior bracing to save building facades has been done many times before with much success. The facade of the former Filene’s flagship in downtown Boston still stands even though a plan to preserve it and build a high-rise on its site fell through, so a future development can still incorporate the facade of the historic former department store. And speaking of department stores, the facade of the former Watt and Shand flagship in downtown Lancaster, Pennsylvania was preserved and it was incorporated into the city’s convention hotel and convention center. I also read recently of a similar effort to preserve historic building facades in Cincinnati. So it can be done, but the question is, who has the money to do it? I don’t see any developers coming forward to buy the building and take on the project. And while I agree the city doesn’t have the funds to preserve the facade, I am pretty sure they wouldn’t do it anyway, not when the treasurer sees another potential cash cow and has the money to purchase and demolish it. We may not be able to preserve every building, but there is still a mindset among too many city leaders that consider these buildings disposable, even when the built environment is one of the main qualities that separates St. Louis from other major American cities.
I know I’m late to the discussion, but didn’t McGowan try to redevelop the Heers building in Springfield, MO. Talk about lack of action. Unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise me one bit.
I know I’m late to the discussion, but didn’t McGowan try to redevelop the Heers building in Springfield, MO. Talk about lack of action. Unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise me one bit.
When I meant for a parking garage, I meant to brace the outer shell and using the original exterior, rebuild the interior for parking. Like the garage next to the Blue Cross building (new police headquaters)
When I meant for a parking garage, I meant to brace the outer shell and using the original exterior, rebuild the interior for parking. Like the garage next to the Blue Cross building (new police headquaters)