I don't ever recall a proposal to demolish everything. Partial preservation has been on the table since the beginning, but now I think it's in doubt without the GPLET, which many are now screaming to have denied in light of the rapid demolition. I haven't been in on enough of the details to say who's right and who's wrong, but the situation for the city has now become like something out of a movie: Some hostages have already been killed and now those holding the remaining ones are making demands. The dilemma becomes whether to negotiate in order to save the remaining hostages, or refuse to negotiate knowing that any concessions may lead to more hostage taking in the future.
|
Here's some detail on the demolition and the circumstances surrounding it:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ding/83094030/ |
^ perfectly said.
|
Quote:
Too bad Stewart motor company isn't still in business at this location and too bad they couldn't have kept their original white facade and beautiful signage. This whole discussion would be moot. Actually, i'm upset about the loss of the couple of beautiful single family mansion style homes that were demolished for the stewart motor company building in the first place. (Some of) You demonize the automobile on this site like it's the spawn of Satan, yet suddenly get a hard on for Phoenix's supposed "automobile row" (I've never even heard of that until this whole issue came about) that this building was a part of? What about the street cars and millionaires row of north central that were lost because of this building partly? I think the HP dept and preservation community need to alter their game plan. Waiting and twiddling their (our) thumbs watching historic buildings they (we) supposedly love sit and rot in front of our faces, then getting up in arms when someone makes a move on a building and plans something deemed undesirable isn't working. They need to figure out a way to inventory what's out there, determine the ownership, raise funds, buy any and everything when it comes for sale, then let it continue to rot and simultaneously enjoy it, or dump more money into it to renovate it and do something worthwhile. Otherwise, you're (we're) just going to be let down over and over again and reduced to anger and tears. |
Quote:
Honestly though, I'm afraid that what happens now is what a few other members have said: the developer holds the rest of the building hostage for the GPLET and when they don't get it, that's the excuse to knock the rest of the building down and then have the lot sit vacant because good luck getting the city to quickly approve any additional plans or permits from this developer after the childish stunt they pulled. I'm even kind of doubting that there were/are any plans beyond the demolition and then hanging onto the lot for a profit down the road anyway. If there were, then why not just take a week or so, go forward with the rest of the community meetings and then claim they couldn't come to a mutual agreement? At least that way the developer looks like they acted in good faith, stays in the mayor's and the city's good graces while also avoiding the shitstorm they've unleashed and getting to build whatever they want. Since Aspirant didn't do that, I'm guessing they don't give a damn what the city or community think because there's nothing beyond knocking the building down and banking the parcel. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I'm also not holding my breath. Quote:
|
This little bit of the story seems to have missed some folks:
"Demolition started Friday in part because of the Roosevelt Action Association letter, which showed the groups were no closer to a compromise, said Larry Lazarus, a land-use attorney representing Circle on Central. The developer also had heard rumors of litigation to protect the building(emphasis mine), he said. Finally, the city's Historic Preservation Commission listed items related to the building on its Monday agenda, Lazarus said. "We weren't sure what they were going to do, if anything," he said." If there had been litigation, the project would have stopped, pure and simple. From a business point of view, better to get rid of the building and deal with any ensuing litigation later, while the new project is underway. I'm not condoning it, but for the developer, having a neighborhood group which has done nothing all these years to protect a building and suddenly act as if it were the Mona Lisa being defaced and stopping my project because they were not proactive years ago is reason enough to go ahead with the demo. |
More coverage, this time from the Downtown Devil: http://downtowndevil.com/2016/04/16/...unity-outrage/
|
In regards to Circles. I get it. A lot of the people in their 60's and over probably have a lot of memories of the Stewarts Motor Co. But truthfully, the building is a very bland example of 40's postwar architecture and already has had extensive surgury done anyway. This is NOT the same building anymore. If you look at Circles closely, a lot of the facade is a mish-mash of original brick and a couple generations of newer brick patchwork over the many years. I walked by it several times per week. You can tell how much was repaired, remodeled, added on and not original. The glass and glass framing is not original and I'm sure the interior walls are probably a mess too.
Someone asked what the compromise was. I believe the compromise is they are not tearing the whole building down which is what everyone went up in flames about because of the full site demo that was pulled. There wasn't much flack from the Roosevelt community before that demo permit was pulled. The developer assured everyone that was not the case, even added on another 20 ' of building facade to be saved after the April 14th meeting. Also, the spinning sign is to be functional again. These were not in the original scope of work before April 14th and added these to offset criticism. This was still not enough for Roosevelt Action Committee. Circles is not under preservation status and it can legally be taken down any time they choose too. Even so, they are STILL planning to keep the South most important section. Doing so from a design standpoint will cost them more money to build over and around Circles than just tearing it down and starting from a flat lot. I'm from Cinicinnati....where there is much more history than Phoenix (sorry guys!) So, to me an old car dealership is not as important as a 15 story Art Deco hotel built in the 1920's that housed presidents of the United States or famous actors or was the first concrete framed building or whatever. Maybe, that's just me or just because I grew up with a lot of old buildings around me. I myself would like to see the South half of the building still saved because I know there is a little coolness there and obviously memories for some people. But I have seen far better history bite the dust with much less of a fight than this. Maybe this is just the Phoenix mentality. After all, I've read of highrise developments being fought because "it blocks the views of mountains". This is just my 2 cents on this. But it's sad that so many people want a 1 story building chosen with a VERY limited history and no redevelopment potential over a 300 unit development that will add people, jobs, nightlife and bring much more money to the Roosevelt District which in turn will spur more development and success for Roosevelt. What is the problem with that? This city needs to get it's Downtown in gear to compete with the suburbs and be a successful core. Circles would have sat another 10 years with NOTHING preserved or developed keeping the block dead and the building would no longer be salvageable due to water damage, sun damage and vandalism. The preservationists would have sat on it and still done nothing and you all know this. As mentioned previously by another forumer, where was the movement to save the building before this development was proposed? Don't hate me :runaway: |
Quote:
|
I would even be happy if they tore it down and built the ground floor as a replica of the old building. To be honest from my point of view it's cool because it's unique and anything new will probably be very generic.
|
I agree with everything RonnieFoos said.
No one gave enough of a shit to preserve Circles until a "dreaded developer" wanted to actually make use out of it's decrepit existence. Not only is this dreadful developer going to make use out of it, they'll incorporate adaptive re-use and add hundreds of residents Downtown while extending our underwhelming skyline to the north. Oh, what nerve he has! The problem is that this developer was willing to hear everyone out, and with that comes the bored lunatics that continue to be unaccepting of any change, even when it's for the better. I'm from Phoenix and want nothing more than to make this place as great as possible while preserving our past, but give me a fucking break with the Circles outcry. |
"they'll incorporate adaptive re-use and add hundreds of residents Downtown while extending our underwhelming skyline to the north. Oh, what nerve he has!"
That's the part I can't wrap my head around why these people think the building is better used as an art gallery used a couple times a month or even as nothing and just falling apart. |
Quote:
The former owners had every right to do what they did with the property, but to say no one tried to save the building until now is disingenuous. It's crazy to imagine that efforts to have more of the building preserved might ultimately cause the entire building to go. Personally I was content with the original proposed design, it's better than nothing and it adds a little character to otherwise ho-hum modern construction and keeps the street level less monotonous. This whole situation shows the pitfalls of rallying the community behind a preservation issue without that community understanding just how little leverage the city has to demand preservation of private property. All it did was push the developer to act before any more creative ideas came along to slow them down, and it got everyone pissed off with the city for issuing a demolition permit, because they don't actually understand how these things work. What a mess! |
Another win for a fucking developer. "Oh we heard they were gonna litigate so we had to do what we did." That's the same argument in gay bashing. They felt threatened so they acted in perceived self-defense. Total, unmitigated bullshit. Some of you don't give a shit about the building, lie about how no one tried to preserve it, and care only if a big, shitty building is put up in it's place. Remember this: some building or project t hatyou love will get get fucked over at some point and when it does, I'm going to rub your short-sighted faces in it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What does one's sexual preference have to do with any of this?
|
Quote:
|
Seriously...I'm with PHX31 on this one. I get the preservation and all that but at the end of the day, if I buy a piece of land downtown and it has a building on it, it's my business what I do with it. If you wanted something different for it, then you should have bought it.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.