The "Preservationists" are at it again...

I'm sorry. Some people won't get this. I have compassion for them, but I'm under no illusions that I can heal their broken spirit.

Yes, Mr. Compassion. The guy who thinks people who disagree with him are either evil, have empty souls, broken spirits, or are too stupid to realize that they are pawns of bad religion.

We are certainly off-topic with this thread considering this is a food forum but since we are keeping the discussion going I have something else to add. Most places where older buildings have been renovated in Louisville and elsewhere the renovation has happened for one of 3 reasons. The 1st reason is that the economics of a project showed that renovating an existing building was equal to or less expensive than building a new building. The 2nd reason is that the antique feel/nature of the building contributes something to the new use. The last reason is that there are sufficient government incentives available to entice developers to redevelop old buildings. These reasons exist everywhere, not just here in Louisville. Where cities have redevelop older existing structures at least one of the above reasons has always been the case except for the cases where the developers have been strong-armed by community activists. We have to remember that developers are in business to make money and they have to figure the entire picture of a project through something other than rose-colored glasses!

Certainly just tearing down an old building to create a service parking lot is not something that anyone wants to see done. However tearing down an older building to build a new one when none of the above 3 reasons are met for the existing building is something that I and I think most people support.

This is especially true in this case where the developers even going to keep the façade of the old structure to help give the feel of early years to the new hotel.

[Robin Garr]

Yes, Mr. Compassion. The guy who thinks people who disagree with him are either evil, have empty souls, broken spirits, or are too stupid to realize that they are pawns of bad religion.

Won't anyone think of the children? <sob>

...not to mention a 255 million dollar tunnel under an "Estate" with very little (if any) REAL historical value.

+1 Regarding the tunnel. Every time I drive by that construction site I find myself still wondering how in the heck someone justified spending all of that unnecessary money. I just cannot fathom that one.

Speaking to anyone in the know...So just how DOES go the construction wars downtown, etc. ?? I've gotten as close as the "Major Construction 8 Miles Ahead" signs on Intestate 71 but otherwise I haven't been downtown in God, I dunno...8 or 9 months.

Speaking to anyone in the know...So just how DOES go the construction wars downtown, etc. ?? I've gotten as close as the "Major Construction 8 Miles Ahead" signs on Intestate 71 but otherwise I haven't been downtown in God, I dunno...8 or 9 months.

I-65 is a parking lot at rush hour. Surface streets are occasionally closed or reduced in lanes, but from what I've seen, it hasn't made things too horrible.

It's just depressing, though, to see them covering up more of downtown with freeway. Especially where historic buildings once stood.

While we're off the subject of food and beverage I vote to remove everything but the silos at the impending new U of L site. In fact, not only keep the silos, but repaint them funkier than ever!

Here you go Steve: http://kyinbridges.com/live-downtown-crossing-construction-cameras/ the web cameras for the downtown project so you can see what's going on without getting in the traffic! They went a little overboard with a number of cameras they have put at least you can see what's going on. The East End bridge only have one camera: http://eastendcrossing.com/project-overview/live-camera-feed/.

I'm with you James. How long will it take someone to try to slap a historical landmark status on the silos now that U of L has marked them for demolition? BTW, which are much more of a landmark with no architectural value that I can see. I'll also wager the odds are probably more likely that this will become a surface parking lot for quite some time before anything is built there. Where are all the "building huggers" now?

Even Louisville's grain silos have been proposed for adaptive reuse...as far back as 1962!

http://brokensidewalk.com/2011/06/14/lo ... ard-mills/

For anyone interested in the Aloft story voila an update:

http://insiderlouisville.com/news/2013/ ... lan-alive/

For anyone interested in the Aloft story voila an update:

http://insiderlouisville.com/news/2013/ ... lan-alive/

Best quote for why locally and lately most local preservationists dont rate highly in my book....

Poe told Insider Louisville last week he hired a historian who researched whether the buildings are on any register of historical buildings. “The answer came back, ‘None of these buildings are on any register.’ So, for a hundred years, no one up to this point has thought this (site) has historical significance,” he said. “Until we announce (the hotel).”

Poe told Insider Louisville last week he hired a historian who researched whether the buildings are on any register of historical buildings. “The answer came back, ‘None of these buildings are on any register.’ So, for a hundred years, no one up to this point has thought this (site) has historical significance,” he said. “Until we announce (the hotel).”

Interesting point.

[Robin Garr]

Interesting point.

Perhaps, but then again, it doesn't really become an issue until someone decides to tear it down.

Honestly, I don't think there's going to be a huge uproar about this, for the reasons stated in this discussion: It's not a building of huge historic interest (although looking at the photo, with its arched windows and brick decorations, it's not a prefab quonset, either).

I just think that for many of us who've seen much of a characterful, unique downtown fabric turned into parking lots and boring, bland buildings by greedy developers with no taste or design sense, we'd like to see a high threshold for demolition, not just city regulators who tip their caps and say "Yes, Massah," without skeptical analysis.

Interesting point.

Perhaps, but then again, it doesn't really become an issue until someone decides to tear it down.

Honestly, I don't think there's going to be a huge uproar about this, for the reasons stated in this discussion: It's not a building of huge historic interest (although looking at the photo, with its arched windows and brick decorations, it's not a prefab quonset, either).

I just think that for many of us who've seen much of a characterful, unique downtown fabric turned into parking lots and boring, bland buildings by greedy developers with no taste or design sense, we'd like to see a high threshold for demolition, not just city regulators who tip their caps and say "Yes, Massah," without skeptical analysis.

Good point as well! When I see old pictures of Downtown.. dang. It looked amazing. 4th street? It looked incredible. Lots of factors played into it's demise but dang I bet city planners would KILL for that kind of vibrancy now.

I just think that for many of us who've seen much of a characterful, unique downtown fabric turned into parking lots and boring, bland buildings by greedy developers with no taste or design sense, we'd like to see a high threshold for demolition...

And I think the Poe proposal with a facade incorporated into the new building is acceptable in this case. I am definitely one of the people who hates what we lost downtown, but I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water regarding new development nowadays.