Poll: Thoughts on Demolition of Cupples 7
Last week the city announced the Building Commissioner will order the demolition of the historic Cupples 7 warehouse if a savior doesn’t come foreword.
The city’s building commissioner is expected to file a demolition permit next week.
The seven story building will be demolished at the end of the month if a developer doesn’t purchase it first.(KSDK)
That’s not much time to find someone with deep pockets to save the structure. Interesting information also came out last week about finances.
Unless a new buyer emerges, the city will be out $850,000. That’s because former Treasurer Larry Williams took an option on the property from Montgomery Bank, lender to the development firm that was unable to follow through on its plan to put condos in Cupples 7. (stltoday)
It looks like Cupples 7 will be coming down because just stabilizing the structure is estimated by some to cost millions.
The poll this week seeks to find out if you support the city’s decision, vote in the right sidebar. See Saving Cupples 7: The Importance of Urban Context for more photos.
— Steve Patterson
SAVE CUPPLES SEVEN NOW!!!!!!!!!
While I hate to see Cupples go what should be looked at is the system of speculation and neglect that drives the process. This is true of Paul McKee on the Northside as another obvious example, but there are plenty of others. For instance the recent demolition of a sound Chouteau Av industrial building just East of Grand Av. wrecked by SLU.
Despite the illusions of a preservation community, the fact is the whole urban planning process has allowed many, many sound buildings be demolished or allow buildings to become in such a state that makes demolition almost a necessity, as in the case of Cupples.
While perservation planning has forced the issue in Soulard, Lafayette Square and other areas, it is falling short in demanding a proactive planning process that catches buildings like this before they fall into this state. The Clemens house owned by McKee and falling apart as we speak even though it was occupied and in decent shape a decade ago is yet another example.
These speculator/landowners should not be allowed to let the property to descend into such depths of disrepair, instead they should be fined and cited until they are forced to sell or rehab.
In the case of (I can’t remember the name of the building) on Chouteau the preservation community has failed to present an aggressive agenda based on urban planning solutions that can utilize these type of buildings.
The loss of such lesser buildings in many ways is just as significant as Cupples. The once grand and intense urban environment of Chouteau Av has just about been completely eradicated until you reach the Grove District. Instead we have many suburban stops along the route now.
Saving Cupples isn’t the real problem, the problem is everything else.
And please discussions of where is the money are irrelevant until there is a thorough understanding of urban planning processes and goals.
Although I would argue a St Louis with effective, public approaches to planning would far more desirable and prosperous and attract a great deal more development money compared to the current “who cares what happens” planning approach of the city and region.
You make two broad statements: “These speculator/landowners should not be allowed to let the property to descend into such depths of disrepair, instead they should be fined and cited until they are forced to sell or rehab.” and “And please, discussions of where is the money are irrelevant . . .” Money may be irrelevant in your world, but in the real world, of owning property and running a government, money IS very relevant. Maintaining property takes money, providing government services taxes revenues, primarily from taxes, aka money. While some property owners will use intentional neglect to circumvent historic preservation laws, the vast majority of property owners want to maintain the value of their investment. It’s hard to force an owner to sell if no one else wants to buy. It’s hard to force an owner to rehab if they don’t have the money and the banks aren’t lending and investors aren’t investing. And “the government” can not and should not the owner of last resort for every vacant building in the city, which is what the ultimate outcome is when an owner is fined, cited and loses the structure for unpaid back taxes. The best way to “save” old structures is to create demand for them, finding new users and/or new uses. These structure are descending into such depths of disrepair, not because of poor planning, they’re falling into disrepair because it makes little sense to throw good money after bad at them! Unfortunately, in the real world, money talks . . . .
“…vast majority of property owners want to maintain the value of their investment.” Hardly. I can name at least six residential buildings on my block, for rent and owner-occupied, in which maintenance seems to be the last thing on their minds. I’ve seen buildings in Shaw, TG, Soulard, Lafayette, Benton Park, Southwest Garden, FP SE, Gravois Park, and others in which the owners are clearly neglecting their property. Over off of Gustine, where the City is doing another alley brick re-paving pilot project, I spoke to a nice young couple who complained about their landlord not fixing a backed up sewer, and allowing debris to collect in the basement door well, thus flooding it every time it rains.
As for buyers, in many neighborhoods, there are plenty of buyers for vacant buildings, except that the LRA won’t sell. Why? HellifIno.
If that’s the mindset, citywide, that many owners simply don’t care about their properties, then we have a much bigger problem, one that the government can’t fix. As for the LRA just sitting on property, I’m just as confused as you are. In other cities, as close as Grafton, property gets sold for $1 (or some other token amount) with the requirement that it be fixed up / improved, and it happens. I can only guess that in searching for the ideal here, we’re missing the possible.
Rehabbing LRA properties are a lot tougher/more epxensive than you’d think if you believed all the comments about LRA on the internets.
I will clarify, I have mentioned Stockholm previously showing the way urban planning dirives investment. This process is completely documented in a book by David Pass called Vallingby and Farsta. The book concerns the development of new suburban areas.
Trains were planned for these areas, public space, density and walkability created, as a result major department stores were attracted to these new developments. It is all documented in the book.
There are many other examples.
In contrast St. Louis lets money drive development, hence there is a fractured city plan that cannot account for the value of buildings such as Cupples. The carte blanche of Paul McKee on the Northside is the latest major example of what I guess we should call the “Father Biondi Syndrome” That is influential people with money, (even if most of it is public) are allowed to do as they wish to the determent of the city and those who live here.
What’s worse, the current planning process (or lack of one) is a recipe for failure, St. Louis is fighting headwinds as it allows “moneyed” types to do whatever they wish while destroying the texture and meaning of the city.
The destruction of Cupples warehouse is the visible result of a larger problem. Money is a tool just like a hammer or an M-16 rifle. All can be abused, but in the end, they are all creations of mankind.