Told ya so...

Hate to say I told ya so...But I told ya so.

..."Because the cost to stabilize the century old buildings is multiple times more than original estimates, the investment group that stepped in to save the buildings last year is now offering to chip in more money to stabilize the buildings, but only if the city agrees to increase its investment, too"...

http://www.whas11.com/news/Whiskey-Row- ... 68035.html

The official LHB scorekeeper needs to give Steve P a point.

Not surprised. That's what the original engineers said. Save the front and back facades, knock the mess down, build new and incorporate the old. Like the Marriott did. Move on.

[Robin Garr]

Fix it, and send the bill to the rich guy who willfully neglected it and let it all fall down. If anybody thinks the damage is not the result of recent neglect, go look at the buildings housing Bearno's and Doc Crow's in the same block.

Fix it, and send the bill to the rich guy who willfully neglected it and let it all fall down. If anybody thinks the damage is not the result of recent neglect, go look at the buildings housing Bearno's and Doc Crow's in the same block.

My thoughts exactly If he hadn't been so intent on tearing them down in the first place they could've been protected and restored. The additional five years of neglect doomed them. He ended up getting everything he wanted and making a nice profit. He even ended up tearing down another historic building farther down main street as part of the deal.

Those buildings were in a sorry state of disrepair before Mr. Blue purchased them. I am usually on the side of preservation, but not in this instance. Those bulidings have been sitting there rotting away for well over 25 years and no one took any big interest in saving them until it was apparent that they were going to be torn down. And now the people with plenty deep pockets themselves want taxpayer money to help them with their investment? What a boondoggle. As far as I'm concerned they wen't going to cost me anything to see them razed by Mr Blue. But the city has had to spend enough money already on scafollding to keep pedestions safe from stuff falling off these dilapidated eyesores. I say save what you can of the facades to incorporate into new construction.

[Robin Garr]

I say save what you can of the facades to incorporate into new construction.

Nah, the Marriott got a pass from Abramson to do that, and it looks silly as hell. Look: Bill ALL the property owners who let them decay, not just Blue. Sue their butts. But don't turn our city into bland, characterless suburbia. Characterful downtowns have meaning, and we've already turned too much of ours into parking lots.

we've already turned too much of ours into parking lots.

+1 So very true in the worst part is most of them aren't even used.

I'm with Dan - save what you can and let's move on. There are plenty of projects that deserve funding and playing the blame game won't fix anything.

[Robin Garr]

playing the blame game won't fix anything.

You see no value in demonstrating that property owners have a responsibility, and send a signal to other property owners who think it's a good idea to let their historic property decay until they can get permission to tear it down? I'd argue that the owners of the Vogue played a similar game in St. Matthews for quite a few years.

playing the blame game won't fix anything.

You see no value in demonstrating that property owners have a responsibility, and send a signal to other property owners who think it's a good idea to let their historic property decay until they can get permission to tear it down? I'd argue that the owners of the Vogue played a similar game in St. Matthews for quite a few years.

I see your point but personally I'm not that moved by the argument. In times of limited resources I believe there are more important "fish to fry". I'm not emotionally invested in this fight either way but prefer a pragmatic approach given the situation as it stands today. If anyone wanted to refurbish those buildings then they should have purchased the property when it made economic sense.

I saw this exact scenario play out in New Orleans when Harrah's wanted to demolish a row of buildings to build a hotel near the casino. They simply let the buildings stand vacant until they were beyond the point of repair. They eventually got their hotel.

Why can't new buildings have just as much character as the old ones?

All while being more energy efficient, safer and requiring less maintenance.

Design is what matters. Not age.

[Robin Garr]

Why can't new buildings have just as much character as the old ones?

All while being more energy efficient, safer and requiring less maintenance.

Design is what matters. Not age.

Absolutely correct in theory, Chris. Sadly, though, in practice this rarely happens. Look at the Kentucky International Convention Center, the Marriott - or, just as significantly, downtown's acres of parking lots.

Or looked at another way, should willful neglect of real property be ignored or even rewarded? If one of your neighbors allowed his house to fall into disrepair, would you want the city to step in?

[Robin Garr]

I see your point but personally I'm not that moved by the argument.

Fair enough. Your points are reasonable, and I'm not trying to "win." I do have a different point of view, though.

In times of limited resources I believe there are more important "fish to fry". I'm not emotionally invested in this fight either way but prefer a pragmatic approach given the situation as it stands today.

In the immediate aftermath of Derby, though, I think it's worth noticing that Louisville received a remarkable amount of good national publicity as a "cool" city, based almost entirely on Nulu. That's not trivial, and I think it's something to build on. If keeping Whiskey Row intact and restoring it enhances that image, and moves us in the direction of having a nationally valued urban entertainment zone - think Bourbon Street, Beale Street, Duval Street, etc. - that seems worth a significant investment. Especially when you look at the amount of money that went into the Yum center, say, or to make a ridiculous analogy, the bridges project.

If anyone wanted to refurbish those buildings then they should have purchased the property when it made economic sense.

Again, that sounds like a reasonable objection until we consider the human factor: Some buyers may elect to hold their decaying property in hope of a better price at some distant future. There's plenty of precedent for that.