Maplewood City Council voted 4-3 on Tuesday not to spend approximately $15,000 to rectify a structural problem discovered with the Sutton Park shelter. The decision means the shelter will be demolished.
While excavating near the shelter, as part of the current park improvement project, workers discovered that there is no foundation under the shelter’s brick columns, which is not to code.
City Manager Marty Corcoran said Friday the city can’t leave it in an unsafe condition.
Aldermen Shawn Faulkingham, Barry Greenberg and Tim Dunn voted to spend the money and save the structure. Mayor Jim White and aldermen David Cerven, Karen White and Fred Wolf voted against the resolution. The resolution was an additional agenda item, not published before the meeting.
Greenberg said on Friday that the design of the park improvements, now underway, are predicated on the shelter being there, and the city would end up paying the architect more to decide what to do with the area if the shelter is removed. In the meantime the only shade in the park would be the tree at the south end.
Greenberg also said he suggested putting off building the planned water feature for the park, which would cost more than saving the shelter. He also said he would donate his yearly salary as alderman toward saving the shelter, and suggested the whole council could do the same.
The shelter belongs to the city of Maplewood, and is no longer used as a bus shelter by the Bi-State bus system.
See also: Sutton Park shelter to stay: Maplewood council
Though the vote favored demolishing the shelter, as of Friday afternoon some council members were considering revisiting the issue, according to Greenberg. He said one of the no votes could be a swing vote the other way.
Thank you to Aldermen Shawn Faulkingham, Barry Greenberg and Tim Dunn who voted to spend the money and save the structure.
Thank you to “Greenberg who also said he suggested putting off building the planned water feature for the park, which would cost more than saving the shelter. He also said he would donate his yearly salary as alderman toward saving the shelter, and suggested the whole council could do the same.” Thank you for such generosity to save this shelter from the storm. Thank you!
Thank you to these people who seem to care about Maplewood & keeping her history alive.
“Mayor Jim White, and aldermen David Cerven, Karen White and Fred Wolf voted against the resolution. The resolution was an additional agenda item, not published before the meeting.” ..these people…not good for Maplewood if this is how they vote….funny thing, not on the agenda….let’s slide this past, hope no one notices. My vote is for the shelter, not a water feature…which will cost money to build, maintain & probably won’t last 100 years…….
This shelter will continue to provide shade & a resting spot for people who want to explore Maplewood while enjoying the park. A great place for the next Taste of Maplewood to provide shade, rest & historical beauty in Maplewood. Sutton street is becoming ALIVE again.
Just think of the past, present & future people who will continue to benefit from this historical shelter. What makes Webster & Kirkwood thriving & vibrant…..they keep their history in tact.
Thank you for the council members who favor keeping Maplewood’s history.
I would like to see the shelter saved. I drive Sutton a lot and see people sitting under it. If the shelter is removed, there would be no shade, since the trees were also removed!
Did no one on the council anticipate this would be problem in a city that prides itself on historic architecture? Especially after the voiced concern about ripping out fixtures in the old drug store just across the street? Certainly this isn’t as bad as mowing down an entire block to put up a KMart on Manchester like the city did in the sixties. Or like the city’s planned use of use of eminent domain in 2005 to tear down half a block at Sutton and Manchester to put up a five story parking garage. Or the buzz that was created surrounding the construction of QT at Big Bend and Manchester?
Nobody on the council thought the citizens would want to have input on this? Really? Did no one offer a motion to table the discussion pending input from the community they are elected to serve? Really?
To clarify, no, I did not anticipate that 4 members of the Council would vote against paying for repairing the shelter. The issue was a result of the discovery after the Council agenda was published, during slab demolition, that the shelter did not have the anticipated column footings.
I disagree with your characterization that the City planned to use eminent domain in 2005 to tear down the property you mentioned. The request for proposal issued by the City had to do with the fact the that public funds were requested. Council reviewed the submitted proposals and did not consider any of them worthy of consideration. The proper procedure was followed and the right decision was made.
I wasn’t around for the KMart fiasco so I can’t address what possessed the City to remove a block of perfectly good buildings and businesses.
I felt the “buzz” around the Quick Trip was a good exercise in public discussion. I would have liked to have a similar exchange about the bus shelter prior to the vote, but I would like to think that there is still an opportunity for saving the structure.
As an architect and parent, I feel that prudent park design dictates that some kind of shelter be provided to address the need for shade by users of the park, including kids, parents and grandparents. I anticipate that after the City spends money to demolish the structure, consults with the architect to address the necessary changes to the design, and places a needed shelter on the site, the cost will be much higher than fixing the existing shelter. But more importantly, a significant part of our history would be lost forever.
But what strikes me as curious is that the city went through an elaborate process to develop a plan for the development of the park, including reviews and recommendations by the Park Commission, input from citizens about their preferences and presentations of the five design options to the city council for final approval. The pavilion was a centerpiece in all five designs.
I know the unexpected hit to the budget comes as a shock–every property owner has had the “joy” of cost overruns. But to just chuck all the input and work in a single first sitting without so much as a suggestion to pause and regroup? Given the long history of this project and the public involvement and interest, it strikes me as almost intuitive to go back to the people and ask for input about how to proceed, given the new information.
I agree with you that the QT buzz was a perfect example of how community dialog should occur–I mentioned it because it clearly demonstrates that the citizens of this community are very interested in the management of their city and will respond when given the chance to be involved.
My point in mentioning the imminent domain case in 2005 was another example of overwhelming public involvement. Who can forget the red and white signs popping up everywhere like spring weeds? And the meeting where hundreds of citizens turned out? Didn’t seem to me that it was all as bureaucratically benign as you remember it, but I’ll take your word for it. The point is, the people were interested and wanted input in matters that affect their use and enjoyment.
But, of course, public input tends to be “messy,” doesn’t it? It’s always much easier to just have 7 people decide.
Q!
The City Council did plan on using eminent domain to tear down the block of 7400 Manchester, Sutton, down to Hazel. To put up businesses, and then apts/etc. above the businesses. It was only stopped due to thousands of signatures collected from Maplewood residents, and turned in at the City Council meeting, disagreeing with the City Council. It was decided that eminent domain will never be used in Maplewood again.
Hats off to Mr. Greenberg!
I think refurbishing the existing shelter may save due to the facts that Mr. Greenberg discussed. Fix the old, that’s what most of maplewood’s homeowners do so that they can save the past. Here is to saving the shelter and helping it come up to code.
Having served as president of the historic preservation commission, and being a registered architect, I have an opinion about the historical value of the shelter in the Sutton loop. The shelter is the last remnant of the streetcar system that served Maplewood so well for so many years. It is a piece of our City’s history that’s irreplaceable.
The design currently being executed was predicated on the existence of the existing shelter and if the shelter is gone then I would assume that the design would need to be modified to accommodate the lack of the shelter structure. We don’t have specific numbers at this point, but the cost to demolish the building, and come up with a new design, and build a new structure I believe would far exceed the cost of fixing the existing shelter. I don’t think that would be a good use of the taxpayers’ money.
It is also not respectful of our City’s rich history and the role that the extinct streetcar system played in making Maplewood a destination.
Barry As a long time resident of Maplewood, I have often admired the style of the shelter. I loved the craftsmen influence of the roof. The pagoda lines of the roof itself. I for one would much rather see the shelter, than a trite water feature.
I agree we should save the shelter if we can. Thank you!
Thanks Mr. Greenberg. As always, your participation in these public forums is greatly appreciated.
Perhaps the Council could simply schedule a public discussion on this? I feel like this was jammed through with little time to really get the public’s pulse.
Excellent comments from Mr Greenberg. It is a rich part of the park’s history and likely to be more costly to replace. I can’t add much more to those points.
I live around the corner from this park and I see this shelter in use every time I go by there. A pavilion or shelter of some type is required at this park. To me, having a shady spot to sit and relax is a more basic need at a public park rather than a water feature which I’m not arguing against but could be relegated to a Phase II, nice to have option.
I hope that the shelter is not torn down. I like the lines of the shelter, it has a craftsman feel to it. It would be a shame to see it gone.
Pretty disappointed that this was an unannounced item, with a 4-3 split vote. Did anyone assess how much usage the shelter receives prior to this vote? It’s also a reminder of the Bus Loop days, right? Just seems kind of short-sighted. Are there no contingencies to our plans?
Why not just tear down everything that is Maplewood and make the whole place a concrete parking lot? Don’t do anything to try to save historic vintage Maplewood, it might cost a nickle.
This information is insufficient for determining what is best for the people. I do not suggest an unsafe site for a shelter. BUT to fail by providing a backup plan for those who are at the pathetic expense of STL public transportation is a human failure. We either care. Or we don’t CARE….At least be honest. I would love to use public transportation—but STL is SH** on that element of living. Public transportation is at BEST piece meal, and abusive of people’s time and schedules. We need a REAL public transportation system…not the leaking of progress that we currently have seen–and paid for. Give us a gusher of planning for P. Trans. l, m.
Comments are closed.