The structure that was to become known around the globe as the Daisy BB Gun Factory was built in 1882.This brick building with tall windows, high ceilings and wide wood plank floors that were full of BB pellets
(workers must have been testing the rifles as they came off the assembly line)
was recently demolished to make way for this new Daisy Square development.
The facade of the old factory still stands.
On September 2, 2003 the developer of Daisy Square, Daisy at Plymouth LLC, entered into an agreement
with the City of Plymouth to preserve the four walls of the oldest part of the factory:
"4. Conditions Developer agrees to the following conditions governing the use of the property:
a. Preservation of the facade and existing walls of the former Daisy Building (center portion
on Union Street) and construction of seventeen (17) detached condominium buildings and one three-story
loft condominium building as depicted on the Site Plan and Final PUD Plans as aforementioned in
section 3, CONTENTS OF DEVELOPMENT, above..."
On the 21st of November 2005, the city agreed, at the request of the developer,
to amend this agreement to preserve only the facade of the original building:
"4. Conditions Developer agrees to the following conditions governing the use of the property:
a. Preservation of the facade and existing wall of the former Daisy Building (center portion on Union Street),
incorporating said wall into a four unit condominium, ..."
The developer proceeded to demolish everything from this historic building except the oldest part
of the facade. It was proped up with metal braces and left exposed to the elements for over two years.
The developer is now asking the City of Plymouth for permission to demolish the facade.
Update: June 12, 2008 Notes from the City of Plymouth Building Planning Commission:
The city attorney opened by giving a synopsis, he stated that the developer Joseph Freed claimed they cannot
preserve the wall. That the wall detracts from the appearance of the site. The city attorney was disappointed overall
with the condition of the building site. The city attorney feels that the wall cannot be saved. He recomends:
- Reuse of historic materials
- Meeting with the current owners of units in Daisy Square development
- Develop a modified PUD that includes reuse of historic materials in the "Windmill Building"
-*Note Daisy started as a windmill company in 1882, the iron windmills were not selling so they had a
marketing idea to give away a free air rifle with every windmill purchase. The guns were very popular,
and so the company switched their product to ai rifles. - Provide additional information about specifically which historic materials can be saved
- Have the Joseph Freed Company construct historic displays that tell the Daisy Story
- Landscape the property-remove weeds, and any dead or dying vegitation Next a representative from Joseph Freed gave a presentation outlining the reasons why they would
- Mortar is missing from between the fieldstone foundation
- Failure of brick units
- Built in 1883 of common bricks "sand bricks", they are very soft
- Outside bricks are also erroding
- Long ago, some of the mortar joints were tuck pointed with inappropriate mortar that was not compatible
with the original mortar from 1883 - At some point in history, the windows on the ground floor were "shortened, at which time it appears
the original sill was removed - Almost all of the sills are cracked
- The ornate window lintels are OK, one is cracked
- From materials and construction, it is believed the third story was an ad-on
- Bricks on the window arches "could fail at any time."
like permission to demolish the wall. The following is a list of items presented by their structural engineer,
NTH Consultants:
He stated that they could reproduce the historic lintels and reconstruct the facade on the new condo building.
They feel the lintels are the most important features and the red bricks are not important.
The representative stated that if they are given permission to dismantel the wall and reconstruct it on
the new building, the "...building will not look any different."
The commissioners asked if a structural report was conducted on the wall at the time that the rest
of the building was demolished?
The reply was that no report was done at that time. The developer stated that they did not think
that the condition of the wall was much different today than it was in 2003.
Commissioner asked if the structure has not changed much, why was repair of the wall not
in their original budget? The rep from Joseph Freed responded that they had not been able to pre-sale
enough units in the "Windmill Building" to begin construction. The bank would not release funds for
construction to begin. The original asking price for units in the "Windmill Builing" was $800,000 each.
Public Comments:
Jennifer Philpot-Munson spoke on behalf of the Plymouth Preservation Network. She presented
the city with 215 signatures of City of Plymouth residents on a petition asking the city to hold
Joseph Freed to their promise to save the historic wall. She requested that the city begin to hold developers
accountable for their stewardship of our historic buildings. She requested that if, ultimately, the wall could
not be saved, that they city require Joseph Freed to numberically catalog the bricks in the wall so that they could
be accurately reconstructed. Some residents of Daisy Square and Union street feel that the wall has become an eyesore. Some stated they
would just like for the project to be finished. as soon as possible.
Commissioner Comments:
Commissioner Philips commented that the Loft building was constructed just 60 feet behind the facade
if the developer was going to incorporate the wall, it should have been built into the Loft building.
The commissioners asked the representative from NTH if she had ever saved a wall in this type of condition?
She replied that they had not ever saved a wall that was this damaged on both sides, but with
enough money, you can do anything.
The rep from Joseph Freed stated that he thought the roof of the old building must have leaked.
The commissioners replied that the building was occupied as offices almost right up to the time of demolition
in 2005. The building had only sat empty for any amount of time immediately after Daisy moved out in 1958,
it was not empty in the recent past.
Commissioner Phillips noted that the water run off from the Loft Building drains to the base of the historic facade.
This has not been good for the foundation.
Commissioners also commented that reconstructing the wall was not the same as the authentic, Daisy Factory wall.
A second rep from Joseph Freed commented that the historic windows were very narrow and not desirable in
living quarters of today.
Overall, three commissioners said that they would like to see the wall saved and Joseph Freed held to their
end of the PUD agreement. Four commissioners said that they wish it could have been used in
the new development, but the wall is so damaged they don't see how it can possibly be saved.
The commission moved to table a vote. They requested that Joseph Freed supply the commission
with estimated costs to restore the wall. If you are concerned about the fate of this wall, please plan to attend the next meeting of
the Building Planning Commission.