Cedar Rapids Council’s reprieve for the Knutson Building is the right call

We think the Cedar Rapids City Council made the right call earlier this month in granting a reprieve to the Knutson Building.

It sits on the west side of the Cedar River downtown and, according to local preservationists, is among the last examples of the stocky commercial buildings that once dominated the riverfront. The city purchased the flooded property for $1.5 million in 2013 as the adjacent McGrath Amphitheatre was taking shape.

A recent engineering study commissioned by the city says the now dilapidated building has seen better days, and would need anywhere from $2.1 million to $4.8 million worth of renovation work. But, on the bright side, it also found that it's exterior walls are structurally sound.

So the council voted 8-1 to spend $167,500 to stabilize and button-up the building against the elements. It's a reasonable call, given the building's historic context and prominent location near the amphitheater and Kingston Village, itself a developing preservation success story.

Too often in the past, the wrecking ball has swung before preservationists could mobilize. That's not the case with Knutson. People determined to save the building have been given ample time to come up with a plan and raise dollars.

Although we understand the need for some public involvement in preservation projects, including tax credits and other incentives, we'd like the Knutson's rebirth to be driven by private fundraising and investments. We were less than enamored with an earlier plan that involved a large infusion of public dollars along with a commitment that the city would lease a large part of the building for amphitheater-related amenities. The public role seemed too large.

Its proximity to the amphitheater increase its potential for development. We think it's possible to come up with a creative plan for restoring and developing the site in a way that enhances use of the amphitheater.

But if a good plan and private investment fail to materialize, we think the city, which has expended enough time and money, should move on. Preservation, we believe, is preferable, but it may turn out that a new development at the site would be more financially feasible.

Some council members want to give preservation backers 18 months to come up with a plan. That's appropriate. We're eager to see what takes shape.

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegqazette.com