Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

This coverage is made possible by a grant from The Saint Paul Foundation.

Minneapolis committee rejects demolition request for 1903 Gluek saloon

Gluek Saloon
Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society
Gluek company saloons were a common sight in Minneapolis at the turn of the last century.

The developer who wants to tear down a saloon built in 1903 by Gluek Brewing Co. in Minneapolis’ Cedar-Riverside neighborhood was told Monday to move the building instead.

Developer Bianca Fine told members of the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee that she does not think the old building is historic. Re-designing the planned 259-unit apartment complex to keep the old saloon there is “unfeasible,” she said.

“We have tried our best to meet the needs of the area,” Fine told council members as she appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission, which denied her application to demolish the saloon (PDF).

“It’s a quality example of a company saloon,” said Aaron Hanauer, senior city planner for the commission. There were at least 86 saloons built by Gluek Brewing in Minneapolis by 1908, but today nobody has a complete list of all of the locations and which ones remain, he said.

The saloon, built with the main floor as a taproom, has an apartment upstairs for the saloon manager.  The exterior has decorative brickwork and the taproom contains the original tile floor.  The first floor was converted to residential use in 1992.

The area also has a saloon built by the John Gund Brewing Co., just across the street, and another built by the Minneapolis Brewing Co. a few blocks away.

Fine’s company, Fine Associates, and Currie Park Developments are working together to build the six-story Currie Park Lofts that will occupy nearly two city blocks. The developers have explored the option of moving the saloon from 1500 to 1527 Sixth St. S. onto a lot they currently own.

“It’s extremely expensive,” said Bob Kueppers of Fine Associates. He said building movers have told him the saloon is quite heavy and that moving it will require the removal of trees and the temporary lowering of power lines.  One estimate on moving the building was $300,000.

“Time is becoming an extreme issue,” he told council members, saying the saloon question already has delayed the project three months.

The developer is financing 60 to 70 percent of the project with private funds but also has acquired $1.2 million from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, a federal grant that does not require repayment, and $500,000 in tax increment financing from the city.

The area is a prime location for housing, close to the University of Minnesota to the east and downtown to the west. 

Three community members appeared in support of demolition of the saloon one calling the move to save the building “ludicrous.”

“We do have a number of very historic bar buildings in the area,” said David Markle, who called himself the unofficial historian for the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood. “The present building is a resource, but it’s not important.”

Brewing company saloons were part of the craft beer movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Gluek Brewing, established in 1857, focused on producing beer for locals. The company-owned saloons sold only their own brand.

The number of Twin Cities brewery-owned saloons was higher than almost any other urban area. In 1908, there were 394 such saloons, with 38 others owned by individuals.

“This building tells one chapter of our brewing heritage,” said Council Member Gary Schiff, who noted the recent local flourishing of craft beers and the micro-brewing community.

“We’re in a difficult position,” said Council Member Cam Gordon, whose ward includes the proposed building site and the Gluek saloon. “Preserving the building makes sense,” he said, noting neighborhood support for sparing it from demolition.

Committee members denied the demolition request and ordered that the saloon be moved. The developers are required to return to the committee with a site plan for approval.

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (7)

What's the tradeoff here?

It's pretty much abandoned today from the looks of it: http://goo.gl/maps/QP3VX If the developer just walks away, what will the city get out of this?

Please...

What Fine and associates isn't telling you is the planned phase II. That would envision razing the marvelous historic firehouse home to the mixed blood theater. Preservation is to benefit to have everyone. Perhaps Bianca could consider another government handout- historic tax credits instead of affordable housing credits and tif.

This is right

They also have their eyes on the former Bedlam Theater building, which is why they chased them out and replaced them with a coffee shop nobody cares about.

Nostalgists

This saloon is of historic importance only to those who are susceptible to nostalgia fever. In this case nostalgia has been sparked by an architecturally undistinguished and wholly unremarkable saloon building. This structure, contrary to what Council Member Schiff claims, is not part of our brewing heritage, but is a very minor part of our beer hoisting and guzzling heritage - one that led to an inebriated nation, prohibition and a return to saner drinking habits. The knowledgable nostalgiaists have been unable to identify any famous, infamous or colorful patrons or managers of this particular saloon -- no Hemingways, no Ole Rolvaags, no Kid Canns, Dave Moores, Sonja Henne's or Bronco Nagurskis. They have not been able to find any significant event in this particular saloon -- no murders, no political deals, no KKK meetings, nothing. As far was we know, none of the bar flies of this particular saloon were ever moved to record and publish their impressions of the joint and of its patrons. Other former Glueck buildings apparently exist in Minneapolis and most likely do not face re-development pressures. I recommend that the Mpls City pols and commissioners let Fine and Associates move forward on its project.

Minneapolis isn't a museum

The point isn't to protect one of everything, or only things with specific historic significance. It's not being preserved because some particular "colorful" patron visited it. It's because tied houses are a significant part of Minneapolis history and architecture *as a whole*, and they are valuable and make Minneapolis feel like Minneapolis only when there are many of them. There should be something more than nostalgia that hurts us when an old building whose architecture is significant and specific to our town is replaced with generic apartments that could be build anywhere. Buildings like this give us a sense of place.

Or to put it another way, with this attitude we would have torn down every old warehouse except the most historically significant one. And we wouldn't have a warehouse district.

Also, history is history whether you approve of the nation's state of "inebriation" or not.

Already have one?

Isn't http://goo.gl/maps/UqVKZ downtown the same thing and still being used?

It's a neat looking building and I'd prefer it be reused, but if it's not listed as historic then they should be able to tear it down.

One of everything doesn't make a city

It's not about preserving one, that is not the point. It's about the feel of the city created by multiple buildings from this era.