Two pieces of Cedar Rapids history face different endings

CEDAR RAPIDS - Two 100-plus-year-old buildings will hear about their fates Tuesday. One is set for new life while the other may face demolition.

The oldest building - the Knutson Building built in 1887 on the west side of the Cedar River across from downtown - is being recommended for demolition by the city's Community Development Department. The department, along with the City Council, has been trying for more than six months to identify a firm with an acceptable redevelopment proposal to save the city-owned building.

The council is slated to vote on the demolition recommendation at its 4 p.m. Tuesday meeting.

The council also is slated to vote on the future of the former Smulekoff's Home Store building, 97 Third Ave. SE in the heart of downtown, where the story couldn't be more different.

The Community Development Department, which has been helped by a review panel representing developers, bankers, preservationists and downtown property owners, is recommending that the council pick Steve Emerson's firm, Aspect Inc., from among six firms vying for the Smulekoff's transformation project.

In a memorandum to the City Council, Jennifer Pratt, the city's development director, and Caleb Mason, the city's redevelopment analyst, state that the review committee selected Emerson's $15 million investment proposal because it provides 'the highest and best use and long-term benefit to the community.”

Emerson's proposal calls for part of the five-story building to be converted into office space so he can locate a new corporate headquarters with 100 or more employees in information technology, purchasing and merchandising jobs. The building also would include market-rate housing and retail space.

Three weeks ago, Emerson said he felt confident about his proposal because of the new corporate office that would come with it.

Confidence is not the word across the river, where Mayor Ron Corbett said he is not sure he can get four other council members on the nine-member council to agree with him to vote against the Knutson demolition.

'I believe the votes will be for demolition,” he said Monday.

Mark Stoffer Hunter, a historian at The History Center and a member of the city's Historic Preservation Commission, on Monday said he would hate to see the council work so hard to look at development possibilities for the building only to demolish it. The city commission has called for it to be saved, he said.

He said the Knutson Building not only is the second oldest commercial building on the west side, but it also has architecturally unique ornamentation and is a testament to the city's early riverfront manufacturing area as is the next-door Mott Building.

The Mott Building, which began as a windmill factory, is being saved, and the Knutson Building, which started out as a condensed milk plant, needs to be saved, too, he said. The two together, he said, provide a valuable historic context.

Beth DeBoom, president of Save CR Heritage, said the demolition of the Knutson would be 'a major loss to the community.” She said she didn't understand how the City Council could allow 'an irreplaceable riverfront warehouse to crumble and ultimately disappear.”

In a memorandum to the council, Pratt said only one of three firms, KHB Redevelopment Group LLC of Cedar Rapids, submitted a redevelopment proposal for the Knutson Building that met the city's criteria.

In the memorandum, Pratt spells out three options on the Knutson Building: renovation with KHB Redevelopment Group; delay and stabilization for perhaps 10 to 15 years until the city's flood control system around the site is in place; or demolition.

According to the memorandum, the renovation plan would require the city to give KHB $750,000 up front; to sell the building to the firm for $1; to provide the firm a 10-year, 100 percent property tax break; and to assume an estimated additional cost of $100,000 to route the city's flood control system around the building.

The stabilization option would come with 'significant” costs to clean the building, repair or replace the roof and to stabilize and maintain the building, which has been ruled 'unsafe to enter.” In addition, the city would incur the estimated $100,000 in extra costs to build flood control around the building.

In trade for demolition, the city could create a revolving loan fund to support other historic preservation activities.

City Council member Justin Shields has called for demolition of the Knutson Building, noting that in 2012 the city tried to find someone to buy what had operated as a salvage yard in its latter years, but no one would.

The city bought it in 2012 for $1.5 million, in part, because the property sat in between the city's new $8 million riverfront amphitheater and a park area that supports the amphitheater.

'It's in terrible shape, and I'm not going to spend any more money on it,” Shields said earlier this year.

Last month, Tim Blumer of KHB said the firm envisioned the renovated Knutson Building could support the city's amphitheater by providing restrooms and space for acts before they take the stage.

In the Smulekoff's project, the city is proposing to provide developer Emerson with a 10-year, 100 percent property tax break in trade for his purchase of the property at fair market value, for his investment and for the creation of 100 jobs in the building. The city estimates that property tax forgiveness over 10 years would amount to $3.16 million.

Earlier this year, Save CR Heritage's DeBoom said the city's handling of the Knutson Building had started to feel like the way the city approached the smokestack at the former Sinclair meatpacking plant in New Bohemia. After about seventh months of discussion in 2010, the City Council decided the smokestack was too structurally unsound and would be too expensive to save.

The council voted unanimously to give up on preserving the smokestack, and a month later, voted 5-4 against a last-ditch effort to save the 41-foot base of the structure.

It all came down along with the plant.