Mesh at old Bauer's location

[Robin Garr]

This is NOT a corporate "concept" turned into a restaurant. This is a guy (girl?) with an idea, a fire, who made a success in one city and is looking to offer that success to Louisville.

Sure, they're "taking money out of our economy," but rather than denigrate them from day one why not (1) encourage our local places to expand by opening in Indy and (2) wait to see if the concept works here or not. Give the guy a break!

Rant over.

In GENERAL I'm on board with your rant, Andrew. I was mostly grieving the loss of the old Bauer's since 1870/Azalea structure, and its lovely shady patio, to what I take to be property owner greed. I'd love to see Mesh in the renovated old building, but that's not going to happen now.

[Robin Garr]

I mean even when the place was still open, it was a dump in the non public spaces. The roof leaked and the property had been added on to several times over the years and the wiring, pluming and general infrastructure of the building was in poor shape to put it mildly.

It still goes back to poor stewardship by the longtime owners of a historic property.

Look, if you have a neighbor in suburban Forest Hills who lets his house run down, are you going to be as forgiving that the building turned into a dump? Serious question.

Another fine example, I'm wondering when they are going to bulldoze Colonial Garden's on New Cut Rd.? It's no surprise to me why they can't seem to find someone to take on the project and for good reason. If I were a developer looking at that property, why would I be inclined to try to restore an old eyesore at triple the price of new construction. Especially in a location like that one, where one would be lucky to recoup any investment in a reasonable time frame.

Don't forget the city sought colonial gardens is valuable enough to spend almost $500,000 of taxpayers money so they could give it away to somebody! That way they are doing the same thing they did for 4th Street live.

I mean even when the place was still open, it was a dump in the non public spaces. The roof leaked and the property had been added on to several times over the years and the wiring, pluming and general infrastructure of the building was in poor shape to put it mildly.

It still goes back to poor stewardship by the longtime owners of a historic property.

Look, if you have a neighbor in suburban Forest Hills who lets his house run down, are you going to be as forgiving that the building turned into a dump? Serious question.

We actually have a foreclosed home that has been sitting vacant three doors down from us that was on the market for WELL under market value for the neighborhood that has a bad, bad mold problem. It has been unoccupied for going on three years. Outside of someone coming out and cutting the grass infrequently, while not exactly an eyesore per-say, I do wonder if anyone is ever going to do something with it. From what I can tell peeping into the windows once in a while, whom ever owns it seem content to let it sit there rotting away. Does it bother me? Not really all that much. Would I miss it if the mold got so bad they eventually have to tear it down? So be it.

image.jpg

(281.29 KiB) Not downloaded yet

image.jpg

(244 KiB) Not downloaded yet

I mean even when the place was still open, it was a dump in the non public spaces. The roof leaked and the property had been added on to several times over the years and the wiring, pluming and general infrastructure of the building was in poor shape to put it mildly. Unless some deep pocketed people were willing to put up some pretty substantial cash to restore the property, I say good riddance. The Wilson's spent enough "saving" Whiskey Row that I'm sure they will never see the full return on.

Another fine example, I'm wondering when they are going to bulldoze Colonial Garden's on New Cut Rd.? It's no surprise to me why they can't seem to find someone to take on the project and for good reason. If I were a developer looking at that property, why would I be inclined to try to restore an old eyesore at triple the price of new construction. Especially in a location like that one, where one would be lucky to recoup any investment in a reasonable time frame.
Just because a place is old and the fact that Abe Lincoln may have taken a dump there once, is not always the best reason to slap a Historical Site label on a property to keep it from the wrecking ball.
Just my .02

^This. A thousand times this ^.

Its all grand to love local historical buildings and architecture. But it chaps my behind when local busy bodies (other than the buildings owner) get historical labels slapped willy nilly on buildings thereby limiting what the owner can do with it, what other developers can do to it, and then throw a hissy fit when the whole thing collapses into the ground because NO ONE (owner, tenants, developers) are willing to put in the ridiculous amount of money required to now fix the building.

If you like the building so much, you buy it, you pay to restore it, and eat the huge net loss. Otherwise mind your own business.

This reminds me of the big empty brick building sitting on Steve Poe's land by River Park Place. 2nd story is rotted out. Interior framing rotted out. Brick walls shot through with mold. Ground floor rotted out to dirt. But some local do gooder got it designated a historical building and now he is stuck with the dang thing. Its a ridiculous situation and unfair to him.

My suggestion....you want to designate a building historical? You should be required to buy it or pay for renovations or have the owner's permission. Otherwise keep quiet.

[Robin Garr]

If you like the building so much, you buy it, you pay to restore it, and eat the huge net loss. Otherwise mind your own business.

This reminds me of the big empty brick building sitting on Steve Poe's land by River Park Place. 2nd story is rotted out. Interior framing rotted out. Brick walls shot through with mold. Ground floor rotted out to dirt. But some local do gooder got it designated a historical building and now he is stuck with the dang thing. Its a ridiculous situation and unfair to him.

My suggestion....you want to designate a building historical? You should be required to buy it or pay for renovations or have the owner's permission. Otherwise keep quiet.

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.

Thanks to me ( &,actually, a great many others ) we got the Twig & Leaf building designated an architectural landmark. The currant owners could care less.

Designating a property as a historical landmark, changing the zoning, or any other government action that reduces the value or economic utility of a property really should be considered a government taking, which under our constitution, requires just compensation.

Sure, property owners have obligations to the community, but the community has obligations to property owners as well. The system in Metro Louisville is out of balance, in that property owners have little recourse, and seem to rarely get compensated for the loss of value that a recategorization causes.

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.

[Robin Garr]

... any other government action that reduces the value or economic utility of a property really should be considered a government taking, which under our constitution, requires just compensation.

As long as you understand that this is a Randian libertarian definition and not one of classic economics, we're good.

(In my opinion, though, Randian libertarianism leaches any moral good out of community, and that's problematic. Heck, look where it's got us since it came to power in the form of Reaganomics and Milton Friedman/Chicago School since the '80s. Hello, 1 percent!)

There's an entire spectrum of Libertarian thought, so lumping everything into Objectivism is a categorization error, which you are using to set up your straw man. I'm not a Randian, but in their defense, implying that government is more moral than Objectivism is a slander.

Now if you are also basing everything on income disparities, i.e. the 1%, you do realize that income inequality has risen under Obamanomics? Obama actually epitomizes crony capitalism. He is good at the class warfare misdirection play though. That's probably why you never noticed, as your world view is based on Marxist class distinctions.

[Robin Garr]

Obama actually epitomizes crony capitalism.

And on this we can agree.

He is good at the class warfare misdirection play though. That's probably why you never noticed, as your world view is based on Marxist class distinctions.

You are dramatically over-simplifying my position. Of course, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

He is good at the class warfare misdirection play though. That's probably why you never noticed, as your world view is based on Marxist class distinctions.

You are dramatically over-simplifying my position. Of course, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Ha!

Obama actually epitomizes crony capitalism.

And on this we can agree.

He is good at the class warfare misdirection play though. That's probably why you never noticed, as your world view is based on Marxist class distinctions.

You are dramatically over-simplifying my position. Of course, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Boy, you leave the forum for a day and all kind of stuff breaks loose.
My original post was just to point out that I thought Mesh would be charging an awful lot of money for the spring rolls I love at Nom Nom or Simply Thai. I didn't anticipate the socio-politico-economic fallout. Have a good weekend everybody.

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.

Thanks to me ( &,actually, a great many others ) we got the Twig & Leaf building designated an architectural landmark. The currant owners could care less.

I've read the other posts that follow this with interest have to ask you one question, what did you accomplish by having the Twig & Leaf designated a historic landmark in the long run? When it closes, which it will, what's going to become of the building? Since the designation makes it extremely difficult to enlarge or change the building or tear it down it's probably just going to sit there like the iron quarter buildings did until it finally falls down. Maybe then the others who got the designation approved think you accomplished a lot but did you really?

I'm not pointing you up specifically Patrick, I feel this way about a lot of people who think they accomplish something when in the long run it's quite obviously going to backfire or at least not provide the planned results.