The "Preservationists" are at it again...

Or should I say the obstuctionists instead?
http://insiderlouisville.com/news/2013/ ... map=%5B%5D
I don't see anything even remotely iconic about this old empty eyesore

[Robin Garr]

Maybe we can just tear down all the nasty old buildings downtown and turn them into parking lots! That worked out really well when our parents' generation tried it in the '50s while they were busy fleeing to the suburbs.

OK, somebody needs to check the recipe for the Kool-Aid these fools are drinking! Just sayin'!

I'll give Poe credit: at least he's trying to incorporate some of the reasonably interesting and historic facade into the new development. He was involved with the Marriott project at 3rd & Jefferson, and those old facades got stitched in very nicely. Jake's Club Reno wasn't one of them, but sacrifices do have to be made.

Maybe we can just tear down all the nasty old buildings downtown and turn them into parking lots! That worked out really well when our parents' generation tried it in the '50s while they were busy fleeing to the suburbs.

Let me say that I am a die-hard preservationist to the point of being an "obstructionist". However, I walked past this building last night and really can't see its historic or aesthetic value. It's possible that I need to be educated about the value of these structures, but it's not immediately apparent.

Maybe we can just tear down all the nasty old buildings downtown and turn them into parking lots! That worked out really well when our parents' generation tried it in the '50s while they were busy fleeing to the suburbs.

Let me say that I am a die-hard preservationist to the point of being an "obstructionist". However, I walked past this building last night and really can't see its historic or aesthetic value. It's possible that I need to be educated about the value of these structures, but it's not immediately apparent.

Exactly my stance, Jon. I would just add that I would be very surprised if there was wide support for this effort to block the project. Common sense sides with Poe and his well-conceived development initiative.

[Robin Garr]

Let me say that I am a die-hard preservationist to the point of being an "obstructionist". However, I walked past this building last night and really can't see its historic or aesthetic value. It's possible that I need to be educated about the value of these structures, but it's not immediately apparent.

Exactly my stance, Jon. I would just add that I would be very surprised if there was wide support for this effort to block the project. Common sense sides with Poe and his well-conceived development initiative.

Okay, I respect both you guys, so I'll give this a fair hearing, although frankly, I'm not impressed by the style of the downtown Marriott or the facades stuck on its sides.

I guess it's just that we lost so much of our downtown - including a lot of significant buildings and real historical character - to a brainless "tear it down" mentality that we caught the end of growing up and that I wouldn't want to see happen again.

Louisville is still on an upswing when it comes to popularity and being an economically viable city (especially for entrepreneurs). It will naturally flatten out as all cities have there ups and downs throughout history. Sometimes we need to accept new construction and chains. Sorry, but everyone who loves only shopping/eating local and preserving old buildings need to move out of the way. You will only hinder the growth of our city.

If you have been paying attention to the media, it has become very expensive to restore or save some of the older buildings downtown. If they are not going to be used, they will become desolate eyesores over time. Remember buildings don't fix or clean themselves.

P.S. The highways needed fixed years ago. Next highway that needs to go is the Watterson. What a tragedy that is.

Just keeping it real people.

[Robin Garr]

Just keeping it real people.

Here's my M.S. in Urban Affairs. What you got?

...frankly, I'm not impressed by the style of the downtown Marriott or the facades stuck on its sides.

I guess it's just that we lost so much of our downtown - including a lot of significant buildings and real historical character - to a brainless "tear it down" mentality that we caught the end of growing up and that I wouldn't want to see happen again.

Originally, I thought the Marriott's skin was supposed to be a mirrored glass sort of thing, but what ended up there is very bland and tired looking. As far as the old facades go, I'm just impressed they made an effort, and it looks nice from street level. I can't quibble with that.

I definitely hate the fact we lost so much in the "urban renewal" phases of downtown, but I think this latest Poe project is worthwhile.

Let me say that I am a die-hard preservationist to the point of being an "obstructionist". However, I walked past this building last night and really can't see its historic or aesthetic value. It's possible that I need to be educated about the value of these structures, but it's not immediately apparent.

Exactly my stance, Jon. I would just add that I would be very surprised if there was wide support for this effort to block the project. Common sense sides with Poe and his well-conceived development initiative.

Okay, I respect both you guys, so I'll give this a fair hearing, although frankly, I'm not impressed by the style of the downtown Marriott or the facades stuck on its sides.

I guess it's just that we lost so much of our downtown - including a lot of significant buildings and real historical character - to a brainless "tear it down" mentality that we caught the end of growing up and that I wouldn't want to see happen again.

Couldn't agree more about the downtown Marriott. Also not exactly crazy about the River Park apartments on River Road. The concepts I've seen for this hotel are a good bit above those projects, IMO.

Maybe we can just tear down all the nasty old buildings downtown and turn them into parking lots! That worked out really well when our parents' generation tried it in the '50s while they were busy fleeing to the suburbs.

Let me say that I am a die-hard preservationist to the point of being an "obstructionist". However, I walked past this building last night and really can't see its historic or aesthetic value. It's possible that I need to be educated about the value of these structures, but it's not immediately apparent.

That's what I don't understand. They tried to reach Steve Porter for comment and he wouldn't give one. If he's got some information that would sway people to see his reasoning why wouldn't he let everyone in on it?

[Robin Garr]

That's what I don't understand. They tried to reach Steve Porter for comment and he wouldn't give one. If he's got some information that would sway people to see his reasoning why wouldn't he let everyone in on it?

That would weaken his argument, all right, although it could be that he didn't trust the reporter or the blog to tell his side of the story.

I think it's a tragedy when a developer levels a perfectly decent building to make way for a Wal-Mart or whatever. But, I also have enough sense to know that if we allow the self appointed architecture police to start slapping historic labels on buildings as they see fit no one is going to want to invest in our downtown.

Honestly, think about your life savings, would you take your hard earned money and invest it downtown if you knew someone could relatively easily change the rules on you mid-game by slapping a historic marker on your front door (decreasing the value by what? 50%? more?)? Of course you wouldn't. You can't afford to take that hit. And neither can investors.

You don't see too many of these "preservationists" putting up any of their own money to buy these buildings. Seems to me if I was so passionate about preservation that's what I'd do. It's a lot of work, but if you put together a viable business plan and if you work hard you should be able to pull together some investors to buy a one or two million dollar building (or more). Wait. What's that you say? To make your business plan viable (profitable) you're going to need to make some changes to the building to make it usable? Tear down the crumbling building out back to make room for parking spots for your customers? So you're just going to pass on this one because there is no viable plan for the property without making these changes? Someone else should be willing (obligated) to take the hit for the greater good of society? Just not you? Okay, I understand.

Isn't it funny how when preservationists look out for their own financial best interest it's because "they have too" ("I'm not a rich fat cat!") but when someone else does the same under the exact same circumstances it's GREED? I've never fully understood this. Who can afford to loose millions of dollars?

So my charge to all of you preservationists is to get into your 401Ks and your savings accounts and get together and start buying up these buildings. Stop being so GREEDY and SELFISH by planning for YOUR future! Think about the community for a change. Sheesh!

Peace.

Let's be careful about lumping people into a single category--preservationists. Several of us expressed our favorable views regarding preservation of buildings. However, this is a seemingly quality project that will conserve the facade while doing away with loading docks. This sounds fair to me. In addition, it is a European concept just now arriving in the US. Sounds very avant-garde for Louisville. I think most "preservationists" will agree once they review the particular case.