BIT OF A FIXER UPPER. The seldom seen interior of 2 S.Barstow Street, an upper floor. The cost of remodeling the building has stalled recent renovation plans.

Locals have come to affectionately call 2 South Barstow “the mural building,” but a more suitable moniker would be the “merry-go-round building.” Let’s face it; that’s what it is. In recent years the city’s Redevelopment Authority has acted as the playground, keeping the place “spinning” on the market and attracting business proposals. The “ride” is basically free, as the city will sell the building for a penny, but they only allow the best proposals to “hop on board” and secure financing for their venture. After a few months, the hopeful business owners get off the ride. Then the whole thing starts over, or sits empty some more.

Most recently this occurred with the Vernon brothers, who hoped to turn it into an all-ages music venue and cultural center only to announce via a press release in mid-May that “the cost of renovating the building, and the circumstances surrounding it, make it nearly impossible for a non-profit cultural center to survive, let alone thrive.”

While the recent news is the most publicized excitement that has surrounded the building, it is merely one of several “near hit” moments that we’ve heard at “the mural building” in the past decade.

So what makes it such a tough sell? With a prime river confluence location, promising exterior, and quite a bit of space, there must be something more to this historical structure.

“First and foremost, it’s a costly remodel,” explained Mike Schatz, the city’s economic development director. “While the outside is appealing and has a great location and view, the inside is very dilapidated and would need almost three floors of total gutting, a new roof, new utilities … so that’s No. 1. You’ve got to have some deep financial pockets.”

We interviewed those familiar with the property and they unleashed a laundry list of improvements necessary for the building’s remodel. These include the need for an elevator (handicap access), a secondary fire exit, plumbing, electrical amenities, revised sewers, and several other updates to meet code.

All told, the costs for the building would be upwards of $2 million and, cutting corners, as low as $1.3 million, according to figures researched by recent interested parties.

“But you get afraid of trimming it down, because you’re not sure what you’re getting,” Nate Vernon said. “We’ve always been excited about that place. It’s a cool building, and we really fell in love with the vision for it. So at the end of the day it’s scary. What will happen to the vision because of lowering that price tag?”

   While the cost is a big issue, it’s not the biggest burden of the property. “The money is not the whole case,” said Sharyn Moss, who before the Vernons tried to make 2 South Barstow a bed and breakfast. There are also major setbacks – like the lack of parking, a basement in the flood plain, and no rear access.

Both the Vernons and Mosses planned to rely on street parking and city-owned lots in the area, which they didn’t consider groundbreaking problems, but it would be a constant burden for delivery trucks, people who might rent an apartment there, or bands loading gear. The lack of rear access adds to that burden, as there’s not an easy way to transport garbage or another option for loading/deliveries. “It’s just another complication at an already expensive building,” Vernon said.

    Perhaps the biggest pain is the fact that the building resides in the flood plain, which requires costly insurance and a basement filled with sand. “The sand in the basement is something we knew early on,” Vernon said, “but for the first two months we looked at the building we were under the understanding that we could remove the sand and use the basement for storage or something. But we found out the law requires the sand to be there because of the flood plain. What we would have had to do is pull out the sand, rebrace the foundation, and fill it back up.”

Vernon added that, when wet, sand gets heavy and expands. “So that was kind of a red flag in our minds. Are we gonna be the people that buy a building and then it falls in the river?”

The city got the property through a donation in 2005, and the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) has been trying to figure out its future ever since. (It was around this time that the RDA and RCU each put forth $1,000 for local artists to add appeal to the building with mural paintings in the windows.) The city “sat on it” for about three years, hoping for a big development to go through on the south end of the confluence, thus making developing 2 South Barstow more appealing, Schatz said.

But with loads of people requesting to tour the building and even more putting forth ideas, in 2008 the RDA asked for business proposals. “There’s this myth that the city has been trying to fill it for years and years when, in fact, it has only been a few,” Schatz said, adding that they’ve gotten a total of seven official proposals.

Now, after two of those proposals have fallen through, the RDA has directed staff to review other previous proposals and decide what to do at one of its upcoming monthly meetings. The board could award a previous proposal, ask for more, or sit on it again, hoping for the confluence development to go forward, Schatz said.

One thing the city has not considered is tearing the building down (though previous owner Mike Benrud, who donated the building to the city, has said it should be). This is partly because the neighbor would have no wall, the riverbank would make it difficult, and the entire block is on the historic places registry – though Schatz said razing it could allow for a more open riverfront for a trail or public space.

In 2005, Collab Architects presented the idea of hollowing out some of the first floor, using pillars to support the upper floors of the building, and creating a promenade that wraps around the building toward the river confluence.

“It’s a building worth saving,” Sharyn said. “It’s definitely risky, but at the same time the benefits of the vision and business when completed would have been worth it.”

    Both Moss and Vernon agreed that it’s a high risk situation, and in order for it to come to fruition the city must be willing to share some of that risk with the business hoping to develop there.

“The ball is in the city’s court, and it’s tough right now to be really accommodating, but they need to do more to encourage somebody and assist them,” Sharyn said, specifically suggesting low-interest loans.

“Whoever ends up taking it, is taking a huge risk,” Vernon began. “We felt like we were on an island with a huge mission to accomplish and we were flying blind. We were excited to do that, but we didn’t have a whole lot of community support. … I understand the city’s hands are tied, but they’ve got to take on some of that risk as well.”

What makes the situation more frustrating are aspects like Prevailing Wage (city-owned property requires higher wages to workers), the fact that historical landmark funds through the state are hard to get, and despite being located in a Tax Increment Finance District (TIF) the incentives have been reserved for Phoenix Park through an official agreement.

“I think it’s really up to the private sector,” Schatz said. “If somebody believes strongly enough in it, we believe there’s a tremendous opportunity to make an unbelievable space not unlike what they’ve done across the river in Phoenix Park. We can easily envision a mixed-use development with apartments on top, some retail on the lower floors, and a public gathering spot. … It needs somebody with the financial wherewithal for it to happen, and understand that it’s not going to generate cash flow right away.”