Despite reports about the building being unsafe, unsound and unviable, it was a relatively clear decision for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation commissioners to deny the certification needed to demolish a historic home at 948 18th Ave. NE, also known as the John Cook House.
The vote on the motion, which took place at a meeting on September 30, followed several public commenters advocating for such a result. The hearing also saw dueling presentations between city staff, who made the recommendation to deny the certification application, and the local real estate company, Master Properties, who submitted the application on behalf of Abubakar Jabril of 1717 Developers, LLC, the current property owner.
The Cook House, 948 18th Ave. NE, received a historical landmark designation in 2021 but has sat in disrepair. (Vince Brown)
A storied history
According to the city, the Cook House received its historical landmark designation in 2021 for its association with “significant events that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history,” as well as the “distinctive characteristics of an architectural style.” The city says it serves as a significant local example of a brick Queen Anne house.
It is named after John L. Cook, a Northeast mason and house builder who built the home for himself in 1899. The city said the home is an example of immigrant housing, as the area had a significant Scandinavian population. By 1915, there were at least two Swedish churches and two Norwegian churches within walking distance of the home.
In November, 2014, the property was registered as vacant and boarded, according to the city staff report on the demolition application.
Public sale records show the home was sold in 2019 to the current owner. The property was condemned for lack of maintenance in January 2020.
“Minneapolis Inspections Services Division staff have been monitoring this property through the Vacant Building Registration (VBR) for many years,” the report reads. “In that time, they noted there seemed to be little if any action from the ownership to make improvements or maintain the property. Inspections staff noted the property’s condition continued to worsen from neglect and inaction and the VBR fees were not an incentive to initiate maintenance.”
The owner’s case
In his presentation, Todd Smith, a principal with Master Properties, argued demolition is necessary, citing a wide range of structural failures, a deteriorated limestone foundation and severe sagging on the front porch and balcony, among other things.
Smith said two independent engineering firms — Anderson-Ulracher and Paulson & Clark — determined the structure posed a “serious and immediate safety hazard.” Engineers reported water damage, sloped flooring and a lack of insulation in the attic, among other issues. Charlie Robinson, a Paulson & Clark employee, joined Smith in the presentation. Smith said Master Properties assembled a reconstruction budget detailing costs to rebuild the house.
Smith argued the firm’s reports carry a more accurate assessment of the property’s current state.
“It’s almost like we’re talking about two different houses. It’s structurally unsound. It’s economically unviable. And it’s seriously unsafe. The house is dangerous and it’s a danger to the community. It could fall at any moment, and it would be horrific to watch it catch fire. That’s something that neighbors just experienced recently on the other end of the block with the Central Avenue warehouse fire.”
Smith argued the property was given the historic designation without the property owner’s consent.
In its report on the home, the city acknowledges the nomination and designation moved forward without a response from the owner or public comment from property representatives. However, the report clarifies that throughout the nomination and designation process, staff contacted the property’s representatives but heard no response. They did not know what the owner planned to do with the property.
Photos published in city documents, containing the city’s and Master Properties’ cases, show the home deteriorating between 2015 and 2025. The city had published photographs of the home in 2015 and 2018. Master Properties had published photos taken in 2025.
Reaching consensus
Commissioners were given a chance to ask questions. Commission Chair Marais Bjornberg asked if there was a reason why maintenance wasn’t done on the building.
Smith could not provide a direct reason, as he was not involved in the project when the property was first purchased.
“I do know that the owner’s intent when he purchased it was not to restore a historic structure, and nor was it registered as such.”
Commissioner Toshihiko Karato asked, “Have you looked at any of the photographs from 2018, and, in your opinion, would it have been in a better structural condition than when you found it in ’25?”
Robinson responded, “I would say ‘probably,’ because someone would’ve done maintenance over that amount of time.”
Several residents commented in support of preserving the home.
Commission Chair Bjornberg shared her experience of seeing the home over the years, calling it “unfortunate” to see it deteriorate.
“Now, also having a little bit of context around this, it’s a little bit more frustrating because it feels like — I don’t know — a perfect example of trying to go through demolition by neglect. To sort of just see it have nothing happen — no maintenance, no nothing — this is something that, even in the photos we’ve seen from 2018 to now, the conditions have deteriorated so much, and all of this was sort of preventable.”
Several other commissioners shared this sentiment, speculating the property was in a state of “demolition by neglect.”
Ultimately, the nine present commissioners voted unanimously to deny the certificate of appropriateness to demolish the home. Commissioner Ethan Boote was the only one absent from the meeting.
Smith tells the Northeaster that it’s not yet known if the owner will appeal or what potential next steps are for the property.