HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 1:30 AM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downtown_resident View Post
some guy from Tucson
Fixed that for ya
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 4:47 PM
Archdevil Archdevil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 73
Quote:
Lets be realistic the only reason this thing won’t get built would be because of market conditions.
This is really the only logical statement I have read in this argument! This is probably the one thing that the city could actually use in the name of preservation. Bottom line is.. If the market is right and the developer WILL make money then he isn't going to just walk away from it. The fact is the developer would spend less time dicking around with the Sun Merc and just concentrate on what is allowed. Unfortunatly the market just hasn't been 100% in favor of the development. Historically the market hasn't been downtown and the city has had to give tons of incentives to developers just to get them to build something. I think that in the next couple of years we will see the market conditions mature to the point where the city can tell a developer that they have to preserve a building and the development will still go through. Obviously money is what is important here and I doubt Sarver is going to throw a tantrum because he can't tear downt he sun merc. So if the city just puts its foot down and says "NO you must preserve the Sun Merc at all costs" then Sarver has a choice to build the W on the land available or leave. If money can be made then Sarver will comply with the city and save the Sun Merc while developing the W. If money can be made and he can convince the city to let him tear down the sun merc so he can make even more money then that is what he will do. In any case the market has to be right or nothing is going to happen anyway.

I just think Sarver is a jerk because of his dirty tricks, there are probably more where those came from. I do think the hotel would be better if they preserved the Sun Merc. A new 39 story tower with an old wherehouse at the base would be something very cool. I think it would make a great space for a nice restaurant and a nice contrast between the old and the new. I personally think the idea of just leaving the facade is rediculous and if they are going to do something that tacky they might as well just tear the thing down. I am for preservation in Phoenix but I am not going to cry if they tear down the Sun Merc, it would be a sad loss but by now I would imagine that most people have just become numb to the tearing down of historic buildings in Phoenix. In fact if there is one thing this city is good at , it would be erasing it's history. Take a look at downtown, we spend more time tearing down great buildings then we do building new ones. Maybe its just the nature of this city and something we should all just get used to. Well obviously a lot of you are already used to it so its just a few of us that need to get used to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:43 PM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
Erg, this is such an agitating debate. Why is just saving the facade tacky? The interior has already been totally changed over the years when it became the Suns Athletic Club. The roof was redone by Colangelo. So the only part that is historic is the facade! Sarver is willing to save that part! So what is the problem here folks?

Also, I do think the market will support the W. We keep hearing about how badly downtown needs more hotel space, even beyond what the Sheraton will offer. Downtown doesn't have a large luxury hotel, this will fill that need.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:43 PM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
Oops, double post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:45 PM
sundevilgrad's Avatar
sundevilgrad sundevilgrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 736
I've been saying this for over a year now, but you're arguing about something that's never going to happen. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I doubt I will be. The W's not going to get built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:48 PM
jvbahn jvbahn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 277
I say we pool our money together and open the "Skyscraperpage Forum's Chinese Laundry and Restaurant." The building will get used, the historic preservation people will be happy, the Chinese will be happy, and we'll have something do do other than post here and bitch about the world's most inane building. It's a win-win.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 7:23 PM
Archdevil Archdevil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 73
Quote:
Erg, this is such an agitating debate. Why is just saving the facade tacky? The interior has already been totally changed over the years when it became the Suns Athletic Club. The roof was redone by Colangelo. So the only part that is historic is the facade! Sarver is willing to save that part! So what is the problem here folks?
I am not trying to agitate anyone, nor do I have major emotional ties to the Sun Merc. Trust me , my life will not be affected either way and I sure as hell am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball. I completly support all development downtown, and I understand that sometimes we need to tear things down to make way for new developments. All I am saying is maybe we should consider preserving it. Are you going to make money on the development? probably not! So why would you just want to hang from Sarvers nuts and let him do whatever he wants? We should be looking at what is best for the city , its our city and we should control the developmet! This guy doesn't give a shit about you or me , he only cares about making money! And that is fine, but we all need to acknowledge that and we shouldn't be afraid to tell them " hey if your going to develop this project, this is how your going to do it" It would just be nice to have a little history left here!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 7:48 PM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
You are right, I don't stand to directly profit over the project. But we all profit if the project happens. It brings more money to the business' we may work in, makes downtown more lively, helps the Jackson St project, etc but I don't have to tell you that.

I just don't have a control complex like a lot of people do. Its not my property, its not my business, it being owned by the city doesn't make it anymore mine than if it was owned by a private firm. I happen to think Sarvers current plan is what's best for the city (outside of the unrealistic proposals, like reverting to Bruders design) and I wish the project could get under way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 7:57 PM
DevdogAZ's Avatar
DevdogAZ DevdogAZ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archdevil View Post
I am not trying to agitate anyone, nor do I have major emotional ties to the Sun Merc. Trust me , my life will not be affected either way and I sure as hell am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball. I completly support all development downtown, and I understand that sometimes we need to tear things down to make way for new developments. All I am saying is maybe we should consider preserving it. Are you going to make money on the development? probably not! So why would you just want to hang from Sarvers nuts and let him do whatever he wants? We should be looking at what is best for the city , its our city and we should control the developmet! This guy doesn't give a shit about you or me , he only cares about making money! And that is fine, but we all need to acknowledge that and we shouldn't be afraid to tell them " hey if your going to develop this project, this is how your going to do it" It would just be nice to have a little history left here!
But you didn't address the question. What's tacky about simply incorporating the facade into the new building? The facade is the only original part of the structure anyway. I don't see why anyone wants to preserve the building in it's current form. It's a complete eyesore on a block with a modern arena and right next to what will be a very modern hotel. Incorporate the facade: fine with me. Tear it down: fine with me. Hinder development in order to preserve a crap building: Not fine at all.

I don't care who Sarver is or what his motives are. It shouldn't matter to anyone. He wants to build a tall building in downtown PHX. That's all that matters. The fact that he apparently played some "dirty tricks" (which I don't buy at all) or that he's from out of town, or that he's got enough money, or whatever other reason you want to give, shouldn't matter at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2007, 12:58 AM
Archdevil Archdevil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 73
Quote:
But you didn't address the question. What's tacky about simply incorporating the facade into the new building?
Yes, I know I havn't addressed this question yet. I am searching for words or an analogy that could help me explain why this idea bothers me. I know Norman Foster did something similar in New York with the Hearst Tower and it worked nice. However the Hearst building was a much larger structure to begin with. 6 stories makes for a nice base, I think the facade of the Sun Merc is simply to thin and to small to have the same kind of presence. Seriously what is the point of doing that anyway? If you aren't going to preserve the building then just tear it down! I think the problem you seem to have is that you can't see past the "TALL BUILDING" . And maybe I am just having this conversation in the wrong forum but I am a supporter of urban environments. By urban I mean high density and mixed use and "high rise" doesn't define urban. Some of the greatest urban cities in the world have very few skyscrapers.... Rome, Paris to name a couple. You should also understand that another skyscraper isn't going to make downtown any more popular than it is right now! Put it this way, in architecture we study precidents in order to inform our new designs. They act as a kind of guide book that says, hmmm no that didn't work or this idea worked very well. If you use precidents of cities in this argument then every great city in the world has historic buildings and historic preservation is a major concern. Phoenix, which I love, is also a joke among great cities and hardly comperable in the global community. That said, Phoenix also has a long history of tearing down historic buildings. Now I know its not directly related but one could say that its the lack of preservation and the mindset of the people here that keeps this city from really developing. The mindset that I speak of is that of people like you who would tear down their own grandmothers house to make way for new buildings. There is enough vacant land downtown to keep developers busy for the next 20 years. So how about we concentate on that before we go tearing down what we already have. Maybe this argument is simply not one worth having, similar to religion and politics , maybe we should just agree to disagree and see what the court decides. As I said before, I am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball, and that wrecking ball won't stop at the Sun Merc either! Better yet, if the Sun Merc goes then they should just go ahead and tear down every other historic building in Phoenix! There is no sense having these arguments every time a developer comes to town with pretty renderings. Plus that way the ground work would already be done for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2007, 1:10 AM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
^You completely undermine any point you have when you say "Well if we can't save a non historic roof, we might as well tear down every other historic building in Phoenix!"

To paraphrase Allen Iverson:


"We're talking about a roof? Not a historic building, but a roof!? We're trying to make Phoenix a great city and we're in here talking about a roof? A replaced, non historic roof!? Not a building, not the facade, not the bricks you can see and touch, a roof? We're talking about a roof"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2007, 4:27 AM
PHX602's Avatar
PHX602 PHX602 is offline
UrbanPHX
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 871
lmfao
__________________
View My Diagram
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2007, 4:33 AM
sundevilgrad's Avatar
sundevilgrad sundevilgrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooverDam View Post
^You completely undermine any point you have when you say "Well if we can't save a non historic roof, we might as well tear down every other historic building in Phoenix!"

To paraphrase Allen Iverson:


"We're talking about a roof? Not a historic building, but a roof!? We're trying to make Phoenix a great city and we're in here talking about a roof? A replaced, non historic roof!? Not a building, not the facade, not the bricks you can see and touch, a roof? We're talking about a roof"


Holy shit, that is funny! Practice man, we talkin 'bout practice, man!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2007, 4:00 PM
kevininlb kevininlb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 506
preservation of facades can be done and is done. someone mentioned the hearst building in nyc. Park Tower in Chicago also did it. you can't see it well in this pic but it's the two-story-ish section on the right side of building. i worked across the street when it was being built. people were up in arms about these old buildings being knocked down; park tower compromised, keeping only the facades. personally, i would've knocked them down, but it turned out pretty well. compromise can work and the preservations get what they want (sort of) and so do those in favor of progress.



guess i'll also just post link. doesn't look like i know how to post pics yet

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=299312
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 7:45 PM
DevdogAZ's Avatar
DevdogAZ DevdogAZ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archdevil View Post
Yes, I know I havn't addressed this question yet. I am searching for words or an analogy that could help me explain why this idea bothers me. I know Norman Foster did something similar in New York with the Hearst Tower and it worked nice. However the Hearst building was a much larger structure to begin with. 6 stories makes for a nice base, I think the facade of the Sun Merc is simply to thin and to small to have the same kind of presence. Seriously what is the point of doing that anyway? If you aren't going to preserve the building then just tear it down! I think the problem you seem to have is that you can't see past the "TALL BUILDING" . And maybe I am just having this conversation in the wrong forum but I am a supporter of urban environments. By urban I mean high density and mixed use and "high rise" doesn't define urban. Some of the greatest urban cities in the world have very few skyscrapers.... Rome, Paris to name a couple. You should also understand that another skyscraper isn't going to make downtown any more popular than it is right now! Put it this way, in architecture we study precidents in order to inform our new designs. They act as a kind of guide book that says, hmmm no that didn't work or this idea worked very well. If you use precidents of cities in this argument then every great city in the world has historic buildings and historic preservation is a major concern. Phoenix, which I love, is also a joke among great cities and hardly comperable in the global community. That said, Phoenix also has a long history of tearing down historic buildings. Now I know its not directly related but one could say that its the lack of preservation and the mindset of the people here that keeps this city from really developing. The mindset that I speak of is that of people like you who would tear down their own grandmothers house to make way for new buildings. There is enough vacant land downtown to keep developers busy for the next 20 years. So how about we concentate on that before we go tearing down what we already have. Maybe this argument is simply not one worth having, similar to religion and politics , maybe we should just agree to disagree and see what the court decides. As I said before, I am not going to stand in front of the wrecking ball, and that wrecking ball won't stop at the Sun Merc either! Better yet, if the Sun Merc goes then they should just go ahead and tear down every other historic building in Phoenix! There is no sense having these arguments every time a developer comes to town with pretty renderings. Plus that way the ground work would already be done for them.
While the tall building would be nice, that's not really what I care about. I'm more disturbed by the fact that someone can't simply buy a property and do with it what they want without interference from outside parties who claim to have some kind of "community interest" in the property.

If there's something truly historic or unique about a building, I think a developer has a duty to preserve it, and I'll stand behind anyone who wants to rant and rail against developers who don't live up to this. But I don't think there's anything about the Sun Merc that's worth saving. It's small, ugly, run down, and totally out of place on that block. I'd prefer to see it torn down. However, if the developer is offering to incorporate the facade into the new construction, I think that should be commended and the preservationists should be happy. To require anything more from the developer when such an insignificant building is holding up such a monumental development is ridiculous, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 9:03 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is online now
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Alameda, San José, California
Posts: 5,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevininlb
Ugh, I hate this s**t about preservation. I'm sorry, there's plenty of old sh*t all over Phoenix. We don't need to save one ugly building. I say Sarver is doing what any good developer would do. He's pushing a design he thinks -- right or wrong -- is best for his business and the area. Personally, I'm with him on this one. And besides, the whole Jackson Street Entertainment District will preserve and beautify a lot of crap that's looking awfully crappy and unused at the moment. I'm afraid what will happen with the W is this, Sarver will pull out rather than compromise on that stupid building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevininlb
I know you're right. I just find it irritating when progress is stymied in the name of preservation. My point, simplistic though it might be, is that DT needs progress more than it needs preservation.
If people got in the way of "progress" in any of the preceding 40 years since downtown started to die off, we wouldn't have the problems we would, eg, vacant lots everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooverdam
I didn't even know the roof thats on the building now isn't the original roof, all the more reason this case is ridiculous then. I've seen the renderings, I don't mind how Sarvers building will hang over the Sun Merc, its fine by me, I wish it was Bruders design like everyone else, but that ship has sailed.
Grr... I hate rehashing arguments all over again but some of you need to learn that there's more to a roof than just the sandwich roll they replace every fifteen years anyway and is not a component to the historic aspects of the building.

It's like an old chair. The black mesh that's stapled on to the bottom is regularly replaced. The frame and cushions are the antique part, and removing or replacement of the black mesh does not change the historic character of the chair.

Let's do a cross-section of the Sun Merc building as it could stand appropriately rehabilitated.
Code:
#_______________________________________#
#XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX#
#XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX#			
#					#
#					#
#					#
#		unobstructed		#
#		open space		#
#					#	
#					#
#					#	

Key:  	# - original brick side
	X - original trussing
	_ - the rolled roof that 
		Colangelo replaced
This is what the building will look like with the structure on top

Code:
	[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
#	[][][][][][][][][][][][][]	#
#=======================================#
#	||	||	||	||	#			
#	||	||	||	||	#
#	||	||	||	||	#
#	||	||	||	||	#
#	||	||	||	||	#
#	||	||	||	||	#
#	||	||	||	||	#	
#	||	||	||	||	#
#	||	||	||	||	#

Key:	# - original brick, with new shoring
	= - concrete roof
	[] - glass thing on top
	|| - interior concrete support columns
If you cannot understand why this building would be de-listed and its historic character eliminated, I don't know what else will.

Quote:
Besides, it's not the Sun Merc anymore, it hasn't been for a long time, it's an abandoned Phoenix Suns athletic club. You're essentially lobbying to preserve something that really isn't.
Wait a minute--that's one of the most preposterous anti-preservation arguments I've ever heard. Just because the people are dead and the use has changed doesn't mean it's ever happened? That's completely bogus. It's why they call it a historic building--because the building is the only thing left from its history!

Last edited by combusean; Apr 30, 2007 at 9:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 9:41 PM
Archdevil Archdevil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 73
Lovin those sections Combusean!! however I don't think anything is going to change the minds of some people. Some people just don't find history important. Or they feel as though they should be the one's deciding what history is important and what can go! Hell, who needs historic buildings when we can just tear them down and replace them with something that you can find in every other city in the world! Thats what we want right, We want Phoenix to just blend in to the rest of the world! There is no need for it to stand out as an original or interesting city!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 10:13 PM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
AH, so its not a roof thats important, its trusses none of us have ever seen- my word, that certainly changes things.

This isn't the Orpheum, this isn't the Fox Theater, this isn't Historic City Hall, its a brown brick cube (something the warehouse district has a lot of), thats facade is going to be kept in tact, I for one can't ask for anything else. Sarver wants to add support columns, and remove some trusses that we've never seen anyway, I don't see the big deal.

It comes down to this, which would you rather have:

The Sun Merc, as it stands today, not being used, just sitting there being 'historic' and adding nothing to the neighborhood or...

Have a 36 story hotel and condo structure that it going to 1. change Phoenix's skyline, 2. keep move conventioneers and high end clients in downtown instead of at the Biltmore or somewhere else, 3. Add more retail to the streets-cape, and increase its liveliness, 4. dramatically help the Jackson St project work by making sure there are always people near it.

I don't see how you could choose the former. I know someone is going to say something like "well I want a third option, I want the Bruder design, or the hotel and the Sun Mercs super special trusses", but thats not an option, sorry.

Robert Sarver is trying to pump a ton of money and life into downtown with this project, and people are standing in the way because of trusses they've never seen, I just don't get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 10:25 PM
PHX31's Avatar
PHX31 PHX31 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: PHX
Posts: 6,582
/\ You forgot it's going to be delisted as a historic building... yet another list no one has ever seen nor gives two shits about. It's nice to tell someone that some building is on a list of historic buildings, but two seconds later they'll completely forget.. it's just not that big of a deal.

I'm sure the trusses are beautiful. But again, no one sees them. The important part of the building, the facade, will be saved, which I'm sure we all think is good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2007, 11:17 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is online now
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Alameda, San José, California
Posts: 5,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooverDam
AH, so its not a roof thats important, its trusses none of us have ever seen- my word, that certainly changes things.
Have you seen the interior of Tovrea Castle? I haven't. Nobody has in 30 years except the people that are renovating it. That doesn't mean it's not there and that it's not important.

I'm sure there's a way to incorporate the trusses in and around the concrete support columns and things like that, perhaps by leaving the roof over the museum space as is. (ding ding?) But given Sarver's tactics so far I just don't trust that he'd spend an extra $40 to do it. After having been lied to and pushed around, I don't blame the Sun Merc folks for suing.

Quote:
I don't see how you could choose the former. I know someone is going to say something like "well I want a third option, I want the Bruder design, or the hotel and the Sun Mercs super special trusses", but thats not an option, sorry.
That's exactly the problem with the process so far. It is a given that Sarver et al are going to develop it simply because they lease space at the arena. It is a given that they are going to select the best and only design. It is a given that alternative options (I'm really not crazy about Bruder's design) are impossible. It is a given that they are reputable and this is going to happen, but, contradictingly, they need tax dollars or public property first. It is a given that anybody opposed to the project in its current form is opposed to it in its entirety, because any suggestions they would have to improve the project are wrong anyway. It is a given that Phoenix will be developed not from ivory tower penthouses, neighborhood councils, nor swank engineering offices, but in superior court, because that's damn near where every project ends up. What the hell?

Why is it that in Phoenix people give developers so much leeway with the public good? Why do we place so much faith in them to do exactly the right thing when every single time I've heard the argument before they've been proven wrong? People toss out euphemisms like revitalisation and progress when we really don't know those are given.

Even as an aside, the definitions of progress in this town are many. Yours does not necessarily fit mine, so it is almost spurious to put it out there to begin with. It's progress to an element I don't think is critical to downtown's success except for the professional basketball players who will be staying there.

If the W was really going to happen or had to happen it would be happening now. The fact that we are subsiding it says that there's no reason to build it--in a normal market it should've been proposed hitherto on any number of vacant lots. Perhaps if there were no Sarver, that would be happening without a fight. Sarver, on the other hand, is fine getting tied up and monopolising Phoenix's path to a W. If it had to get built, Sarver would have started going to the negotiating table in earnest.

But if Sarver wants to prove his salt, he can build the toilet first. Then he can flush Sun Merc into it. It's very easy to look at a boring brick cube compared to the significant height (its only redeeming quality) of the W and say that's progress, but the scenario that I fear is Sun Merc's destruction (in its current form) for no damn reason. If Sun Merc gets torn apart, and for whatever reason the W doesn't happen, we're left with a fraction of what we started with.

Let's bring this back on topic--CityScape. Compare the approved project with what we first saw. Everybody associated with the savepatriotspark.org movement was derided for the same reasons the Sun Merc folks are now. But if we had shut up, we wouldn't be getting a better project--I like the flexible event space, etc. That's my solace out of the eight months I put into it. Why shouldn't Sarver be held to the same public standard?

Last edited by combusean; Apr 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:53 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.