Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer: Blue Street Printing building unsafe; council weighs securing, sale or demolition
Summary
A structural engineer told Hopkinsville City Council the Blue Street Printing building at 116 E. 9th St. is unsafe for occupancy and recommended barricading public access while the city evaluates rehabilitation versus demolition; council discussed declaring it surplus and soliciting buyers under an RFP.
A structural engineer told Hopkinsville City Council on Oct. 21 that the Blue Street Printing building at 116 East 9th Street exhibits significant deterioration and is not safe for occupancy in its current condition, and recommended immediate steps to protect the public while officials determine whether to rehabilitate or remove the structure.
Mr. Gardner, the consultant hired to perform a visual structural review, summarized his field observations and photographic evidence: extensive roof and parapet damage, cracked flashing allowing water infiltration, compromised exterior brick and mortar, and settled and cracked slabs. "Until stabilization or demolition is completed, the property should remain secured and unoccupied," Gardner said during his presentation.
The engineer recommended restricting public access immediately and said a full structural evaluation, including invasive inspection of roof rafters, would be required to determine whether rehabilitation is feasible. He also described two clear options: invest in comprehensive repairs and stabilization or proceed with demolition under city oversight if rehabilitation proves infeasible.
Council members asked about immediate safety measures; Gardner advised at minimum barricading the sidewalk adjacent to the building, noting a full street closure would be impractical given the building’s height and downtown circulation. Mayor and staff directed city crews to secure sidewalks and obtain asbestos‑removal pricing so the council can compare demolition costs against rehabilitation estimates.
Several council members and staff raised preservation concerns and pointed to the L & N depot restoration as a local precedent for private‑sector rehabilitation. Council discussed declaring the property surplus and soliciting proposals through an RFP so a private investor could undertake rehabilitation with city oversight and deeds or covenants to protect historic features.
No formal disposition decision was made. Staff said the issue would return to council with additional cost estimates, an asbestos-abatement figure, and a timetable for declaring surplus property if selling is pursued. In the meantime, the building has been secured and entry prohibited per the engineer’s recommendation.
