Welcome to the Louisville Restaurants Forum, a civil place for the intelligent discussion of the local restaurant scene and just about any other topic related to food and drink in and around Louisville.
User avatar
User

Steve H

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1406

Joined

Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Location

Neanderthals rock!

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Steve H » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:46 pm

Gordon M Lowe wrote:
Steve H wrote:I know the owners of the Twig and Leaf. They bought it so that their immigrant parents could have a fruitful occupation. They wanted to sell the property for other development, but the historic designation thwarted that. Now, increasing restaurant competition in the area has reduced revenue significantly, but they are stuck. All this to "save" a cinder block "historic" building with a pretty neon sign.


Well, it is a nice sign. :)


We certainly agree about that!
:lol:
User avatar
User

Jay M.

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

797

Joined

Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:09 pm

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Jay M. » Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:35 pm

I love the Twig sign. It's a landmark in my neighborhood and a convenient landmark to give directions: "Turn left at the Twig". I believe the effort to designate it an historical structure came about when CVS wanted to locate a pharmacy on the corner. The neighbors objected and the historic designation prevented the proposed redevelopment. But, even Tom Owen, whose metier is "historian" and who is a protector of all local structures with historic significance, said the Twig building has no qualities that would qualify it for that designation.
User avatar
User

Doug Davis

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

444

Joined

Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:05 pm

Location

The Highlands

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Doug Davis » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:35 pm

Robin Garr wrote:

Seriously, Doug? You think a property owner has no responsibility to the community he or she owns property in? Sorry, but neither common nor civil law supports that. Property owners have duties, and I'd suggest that the owners of historic property have an additional moral obligation. Certainly doubly so when they could well afford to keep it up AND chose to let it decay rather than maintaining it. Fines and jail time seem more appropriate to me than tea and sympathy.



They werent "historic" in most cases until some local busybody who wouldnt have to pay the cost of upkeep and renovations got them designated as such, without consultation or in consideration with the actual owner who would now be responsible for not only the increased maintenance costs but now being saddled with a building that can only be marginally changed due to its "historic" status.

If I knowingly bought a historic building and bought it understanding the responsibilities and costs there of, you might have a point.
Otherwise someone like Steve is now stuck with a moldy collapsing brick structure of NO USE to anyone and of no particular architectural significance that he cant tear down. Its frankly stupid.

And Im saying this as someone who lives in a 112+ year old house near Cherokee in the Highlands. I love old architecture. But I find it funny how no one cares about these "old buildings" until some developer, who the local busybodies thinks have deep pockets, buys the building and then they swoop in to save it. Most local developers arent wiping their behinds with $100 bills. Most are operating on pretty thin margins.

Again if you think its so historical then you (generic you, not you specifically Robin) and your community group should have raised the money to buy and restore the building yourself. Not only caring about it after its bought by a developer, and half falling in already.

The Iron buildings on Main are a perfect example. Steve is spending millions, because he is a nice guy to save facades! Thats it. The entire rest of the building has been torn down. There is NOTHING left. I mean my God they could have simply worked out a deal between the planning commission and development office, that after demo any newly built structures would have to have period reproductions facades built onto them so they maintained the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. Would have accomplished the same thing at a fraction of the cost.
I eat, therefore I am.
User avatar
User

Steve Shade

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1364

Joined

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:53 am

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Steve Shade » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:42 am

Jay M. wrote:I love the Twig sign. It's a landmark in my neighborhood and a convenient landmark to give directions: "Turn left at the Twig".


Tear down the dump of a building and put the sign on a post. 8)
"Don't accept your dog's admiration as
conclusive evidence that you are wonderful."
-- Ann Landers
User avatar
User

Steve P

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

4848

Joined

Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Steve P » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:06 am

Doug Davis wrote:
Robin Garr wrote:

Seriously, Doug? You think a property owner has no responsibility to the community he or she owns property in? Sorry, but neither common nor civil law supports that. Property owners have duties, and I'd suggest that the owners of historic property have an additional moral obligation. Certainly doubly so when they could well afford to keep it up AND chose to let it decay rather than maintaining it. Fines and jail time seem more appropriate to me than tea and sympathy.



They werent "historic" in most cases until some local busybody who wouldnt have to pay the cost of upkeep and renovations got them designated as such, without consultation or in consideration with the actual owner who would now be responsible for not only the increased maintenance costs but now being saddled with a building that can only be marginally changed due to its "historic" status...


Again if you think its so historical then you (generic you, not you specifically Robin) and your community group should have raised the money to buy and restore the building yourself. Not only caring about it after its bought by a developer, and half falling in already.



Pretty much agree 100% with Doug on this one,..
Stevie P...The Daddio of the Patio
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Robin Garr » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:49 am

Steve P wrote:Pretty much agree 100% with Doug on this one,..

At the risk of repetition: "Seriously, Steve? You think a property owner has no responsibility to the community he or she owns property in?"
User avatar
User

Patrick Kelting

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

101

Joined

Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:39 pm

Location

The Burbs

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Patrick Kelting » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:35 pm

Steve H wrote:
Gordon M Lowe wrote:
Steve H wrote:I know the owners of the Twig and Leaf. They bought it so that their immigrant parents could have a fruitful occupation. They wanted to sell the property for other development, but the historic designation thwarted that. Now, increasing restaurant competition in the area has reduced revenue significantly, but they are stuck. All this to "save" a cinder block "historic" building with a pretty neon sign.


Well, it is a nice sign. :)


We certainly agree about that!
:lol:


Hey Steve H, the owners of the Twig & Leaf do not own the building; they lease it from a trust fund administered by the bank across the street. The owners have had many opportunities to sell the business in the past, but their asking price was too high.
User avatar
User

Dan Thomas

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

2466

Joined

Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:19 am

Location

Sunny Forest Hills

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Dan Thomas » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
Steve P wrote:Pretty much agree 100% with Doug on this one,..

At the risk of repetition: "Seriously, Steve? You think a property owner has no responsibility to the community he or she owns property in?"

The term property owner is just that...owner of the property. I don't understand it to include any moral obligation to provide any stewardship for its maintenence if the owner doesn't see fit to maintain said property. Sure there are deed restrictions in place in certain areas that do require certain levels of upkeep. But as long as the owner isn't breaking any laws by letting their property deteriorate, why wouldn't they be allowed to do as they see fit to do what they want with it?
Dan Thomas
Operator Specialist
Waypoint

dthomas@awpwaypoint.com

"People who aren't interested in food seem rather dry, unloving and don't have a real gusto for life."
Julia Child
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Robin Garr » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:48 pm

Dan Thomas wrote:The term property owner is just that...owner of the property. I don't understand it to include any moral obligation to provide any stewardship for its maintenence if the owner doesn't see fit to maintain said property. Sure there are deed restrictions in place in certain areas that do require certain levels of upkeep. But as long as the owner isn't breaking any laws by letting their property deteriorate, why wouldn't they be allowed to do as they see fit to do what they want with it?

Dan, it's about neighborhood and about community and about people living and working together. There's nothing mysterious here, but unless one chooses to build a log cabin out in the woods, he or she has some duty to the people in nearby community.

I'm sorry. If you guys really are being serious and not just ironic, I don't think there's much more I can say. I'm kind of glad you don't live in my part of town, though. :evil:
User avatar
User

Dan Thomas

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

2466

Joined

Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:19 am

Location

Sunny Forest Hills

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Dan Thomas » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:41 pm

Good discourse on this subject even though we totally hijacked the thread. :lol: :lol:

That being said, Mesh does look like it will be an interesting addition to the ever expanding dining scene.
Now get off my lawn! :wink: :mrgreen:
Dan Thomas
Operator Specialist
Waypoint

dthomas@awpwaypoint.com

"People who aren't interested in food seem rather dry, unloving and don't have a real gusto for life."
Julia Child
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Robin Garr » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:45 pm

Dan Thomas wrote:Now get off my lawn! :wink: :mrgreen:

Can't make me! I'm callin my Dad! :lol:
User avatar
User

Patrick Kelting

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

101

Joined

Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:39 pm

Location

The Burbs

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Patrick Kelting » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:57 pm

Neither one of you play nice with others & you both run with scissors.
User avatar
User

Steve H

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1406

Joined

Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:27 pm

Location

Neanderthals rock!

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Steve H » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:28 pm

Patrick Kelting wrote:
Hey Steve H, the owners of the Twig & Leaf do not own the building; they lease it from a trust fund administered by the bank across the street. The owners have had many opportunities to sell the business in the past, but their asking price was too high.


They told me that they own the Twig and Leaf. I didn't ask to see the title.
User avatar
User

Steve P

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

4848

Joined

Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Steve P » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:27 am

Robin Garr wrote:
Steve P wrote:Pretty much agree 100% with Doug on this one,..

At the risk of repetition: "Seriously, Steve? You think a property owner has no responsibility to the community he or she owns property in?"


Robin,

Ehhhhhh.....my short answer is yes and no. I think one has to (almost) look at such things on a case by case basis. Looking at it on the broader scope of historical designation, I suppose during my 5 years here in Louisville I'd have to say I've witnessed more of what I would call the "abuse" of the historical designation than the other way around (not implying for a second that I constantly have my thumb on the pulse of such matters). The perfect example of this is the "historical" property that lies in the path of the east end bridge. Last I bothered to read THAT little back door attempt to stop the bridge had "saved" a -marginally- (at best) historical estate BUT in the process had cost the citizens of Kentucky 145 million dollars (as the result of having to -tunnel- under the property). To some degree I'll lump the "Whiskey Row" project into the conversation. I stopped keeping score on that one when (as I predicted in previous conversations) the cost of -that- little restoration project exceeded 3X what had been projected. As a result, there is no doubt in my military mind that 10 years from now we'll be having this conversation again...once the current "owners" get tired of dumping money down a (VERY expensive) frog hole.
Stevie P...The Daddio of the Patio
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Mesh at old Bauer's location

by Robin Garr » Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:37 pm

Steve P wrote:The perfect example of this is the "historical" property that lies in the path of the east end bridge. Last I bothered to read THAT little back door attempt to stop the bridge had "saved" a -marginally- (at best) historical estate BUT in the process had cost the citizens of Kentucky 145 million dollars (as the result of having to -tunnel- under the property). To some degree I'll lump the "Whiskey Row" project into the conversation. I stopped keeping score on that one when (as I predicted in previous conversations) the cost of -that- little restoration project exceeded 3X what had been projected. As a result, there is no doubt in my military mind that 10 years from now we'll be having this conversation again...once the current "owners" get tired of dumping money down a (VERY expensive) frog hole.

Dang! I can't argue with you on that one at all. Harrumph!!

But I do think it's an exception. Abuse of historic preservation, and if the judge hadn't been in on the scam, it probably wouldn't have flown. But it's different from Azalea/Bauer's, the Vogue, John E's, Colonial Gardens, even Whiskey Row, where the owners could easily have afforded to keep their property up but let them rot until destruction was the only option.

Seems to me that the Drumanard (sp?) property was completely different. Nobody was letting that big old house run down, and it was residential,, not commercial property in the first place. The only question is whether taking off a corner of the property to avoid having to build a multi-gazillion dollar tunnel was really a "historic preservation" issue at all. Whole nuther story, IMO.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign
cron