Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
I posted this to pass along the Bites article from the SN&R--if for no other reason to point out that I'm not the only one concerned about this, or the only one who thinks it's a bit suspect to preemptively demolish a building before a new plan has even been submitted. There's no plan in the works with the city--so there's nothing to stall! If there is a plan, why hasn't it been submitted to the city?
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!)
For all we know, Heller might decide to make this into a parking lot.
|
From what we've heard so far on this board, Heller is apparently planning for it to be a building that will host the work of local artists (his dad's?) as I'm sure you've already read.
Enough of the chain link fence and parking lot rhetoric...it's getting tired. Even if his plans don't pan out, his goal is admirable. And his goal is not to install a paid parking lot - even though the building already had one of those before it was tore down.
True about the adaptive reuse for MARRS, but it was preserved for economic
not historical reasons as you were arguing above. You need to choose one arguement and stick with it, not keep flip flopping. The MARRS building had very little historical significance as it was used, at least for a pretty long time, as Mayflower Moving's storage space.
In the case of the shack, he probably evaluated the financial prospects of renovating the shack versus starting from scratch - clearly starting from scratch won out in this case.