Real Estate News & Market Insights:
- In February 2025 the Marquitz-Garesche House was bought by Harlan "Harlee" Sorkin and Annelle Sorkin; demolition permit applied May 29, 2025.
- Sorkin cited electrical hazards, lead water pipes, lead paint, possible asbestos, and concluded renovation would compromise safety and historic integrity.
- Neighbors led by dentist Erin Mariscal gathered nearly 1,937 signatures on an Change.org petition opposing demolition.
- On April 3, Judge John Borbonus dismissed residents' suit; landmarks commission lacks authority to deny demolition but will review new home's exterior.
The demolition of a landmark Kirkwood, MO, home is moving ahead after opponents lost their legal battle to stop it.
The Marquitz-Garesche House at 751 N. Taylor, built in 1858, is named after William Marquitz, its owner from 1876 until 1910, and Charles A. Garesche, who bought the home in 1915 and remained there until he died in 1931.
“The Marquitz-Garesche House is a locally designated landmark,” Jessica Winter, communications manager for the city of Kirkwood, tells Realtor.com®.
Although it’s surprising to some, even its landmark designation can’t save it from the wrecking ball.
How this happened
In February 2025, the home in the North Taylor Historic District was purchased by health startup CEO Harlan “Harlee” Sorkin and his wife, Pilates instructor Annelle Sorkin, for $635,000.
On May 29, 2025, an application for a demolition permit for the property was submitted to the Kirkwood Landmarks Commission and Architectural Board by Harlan Sorkin.
He said that multiple additions made to the home had created challenges in updating the home to modern safety and living standards, according to St. Louis magazine.
The landmarks commission imposed a 270-day review period to give Sorkin time to explore alternatives, including possible renovation.
At a landmarks commission meeting in July, Sorkin reportedly noted issues with the electric system, lead water pipes, and lead paint—and said there was also the possibility of asbestos in the insulation underneath the attic floor and walls.
Sorkin said he originally intended to renovate the home—not demolish it—and that he’d hired an architect and builder. But he determined that a renovation would not be feasible for reasons of safety, incompatibility of modern living standards, and loss of historical integrity.
“Nobody looks at a historic house and says, ‘I want to tear this down,’” he said. “When we purchased the house, there was no expectation that we would live in it ‘as is.’ The question was what would it take to make this workable for us. We ultimately determined it would be a challenge due to loss of historical integrity, incompatibility of modern living standards, and ultimately, safety.
Public outcry
The possibility of the historic property being razed sparked outrage among many neighbors as the news became public.
Resident Erin Mariscal, who’s a local dentist, started a petition on Change.org to save the historic home and gathered 1,937 signatures.
“Preserving our historic landmarks is crucial for maintaining the aesthetic and historical fabric of our community,” Mariscal wrote in her petition. Once this home is destroyed, we cannot bring it back. Its unique character and historical significance would be lost forever, depriving the community of another vital piece of our collective identity.
According to Mariscal, allowing this demolition to proceed would “continue the dangerous precedent that threatens the remaining historic homes and structures that contribute to the charm and cultural depth of Kirkwood.
She wrote, “If zoning a neighborhood Historic and a home a Landmark, what more can we as a community do to tell the city and new owners that we don’t want our homes to be torn down and replaced by McMansions?
Mariscal later posted on Facebook, “Unacceptable you can purchase a historic gem and then immediately file for demolition. This old home deserves an owner who will love it for the next 50 years. My heart breaks for the previous owner.”
The previous owner she’s referring to, Mary Glen, wrote in the Webster-Kirkwood Times, “I appreciate the advocacy on behalf of this 168-year-old home. During my 49 years of living there, we invested over $1.3 million in meticulously maintaining the property. We always prioritized maintaining the architectural integrity of the time period when the house was built. The house is modern and livable, and meets all code standards.”
Legal pushback
Right before the 270-day review period was up in February, attorney Jay R. Burns—representing nine Kirkwood residents, including Mariscal, as well as the petition signers—filed a lawsuit challenging the landmarks commission’s decision not to deny a demolition permit to Sorkin.
“Kirkwood created a historic preservation ordinance in 1982 and amended it in 1986. But all the commission they created can do is study historic properties—they can’t stop the demolition of them. Instead of putting the ability to stop demolition in the ordinance, they put an ability to defer it instead. It’s not effective. It’s oxymoronic to go to the trouble to recognize these historic homes if you are not going to do something about it,” Burns tells Realtor.com.
Burns says that the residents concerned about the fate of the Marquitz-Garesche House were “really fired up about this.
One of the plaintiffs, Beth Gearhart, wrote on the Kirkwood Gadfly, “Neighbors are trying (as in many of the tear-downs of the past) to stop it, but the Kirkwood Landmarks Commission, despite being formed by Kirkwood becoming a Certified Local Government for historic preservation in 1986, maintains it has no power to deny a demolition of this, or any, wonderfully maintained historic house. We have filed a lawsuit, but have little hope, really. So anyone can tear down anything (according to Kirkwood) in Kirkwood. And what we see are historic homes being torn down to create big houses more suited to large lots in Town and Country or St. Charles.”
Judge’s ruling greenlights demolition
On April 3, Judge John Borbonus ruled that the neighbors named in the lawsuit did not meet the requirements for the ruling they sought, so he granted the current owners’ and the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
“The landmarks commission will take no further action regarding the demolition of 751 N. Taylor Avenue, as the 270-day review period for the demolition permit has ended,” says communications manager Winter. The landmarks commission will, however, be responsible for the review and approval of the exterior design of the proposed new home.”
As for when the tear-down will take place, Winter says, “The building commissioner will issue the demolition permit once the owner/applicant has submitted all required information and the application is determined to be in compliance with applicable building codes. The timing will depend on when those materials are provided.
“It saddens me that the historic architectural gem may soon be demolished after all. I appreciate the efforts of citizens who fought, even if unsuccessfully, to prevent this outcome,” Kirkwood City Councilmember Nancy Luetzow tells Realtor.com. I still hope that the current owner will consider ways to remodel the home or even move the home to a vacant lot. Kirkwood’s charm is largely due to such architectural gems that remind us of our storied past and the earlier residents who laid the groundwork for the beautiful community that we all love and enjoy today.
But Burns says, “We have one more thing we’re going to do in the lawsuit before we abandon it, which I’m not going to disclose yet.”
Realtor.com reached out to the Sorkins and their attorney, but did not hear back.
Read the full article on the original source
