Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Economic reasons is one of the most important reasons for historic preservation, Grimnebulin--they certainly aren't mutually exclusive. The MARRS building is a historic building--Washington doesn't have to have slept someplace to make it historic. It's not a landmark, nor is it something that is going to get on the National Register. But it qualifies as a historic building, within its own context.
A "MARRS type" project would be swell--but please note that the MARRS project was an adaptive reuse of an existing (and technically historic) building, and part of why MARRS worked financially is because it's cheaper to make use of an existing building than to build a new one (and I heard this directly from Heller at a presentation!)
|
Just when I thought you couldn't be any dumber... you go and say something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM yourself! (dumb and dumber)
Well, actually, not really.
Suddenly a historian knows what aspects of development are more economical because a developer said in a
certain case it was more economically viable to use an existing building. Using an existing building is NOT generally cheaper to build on. Just because in one case it was doesn't mean it is a generality. I cant believe my eyes when I read such ignorant stupidity. Ask any developer about structural engineering costs skyrocketing when you build / rebuild on an existing structure. These one bullet-point lower division college freshmen arguments are starting to get good...
