Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
I highly disagree with emathias that these would be "lipsticked-up pigs." Foremost, never judge the history of a site or architecture before knowing the whole story. These buildings are far from unoriginal or insignificant. Second, the developer has never had a problem in this community marketing these units. They claim they want to retain an equal (or near-equal) number of rental units on the site. So, where is the challenge in attracting tenants? The new buildings and retail could make the site more desirable, not less, if they are planned correctly.
|
Amen, amen, amen. Firstly, if I'm not mistaken these were from about 1957; very early and trendsetting in their design. No inland steel, of course, but the only significant residential modernist predecessor that comes to mind is 860-880. I hear those are very expensive to maintain too, maybe they could use a little bulldozing and replacement...
Secondly, as you allude to,
these are not blight. We're not talking about a rotting, decaying commercial building (soon to be my neighbor the Village Theater for example). This is a healthy vibrant community. No, not new and not luxurious, but not everything should be. By the logic presented by emathias and Mr D, nothing would be a landmark save perhaps for facadectomies of irreplaceable facades. Do I think Lake Meadows are landmark quality? *Probably* not, though within a few decades this will be debatable when people realize the scarcity of such quality examples of the style. But I'd better not here a request for a dime of TIF money by D+K if they think the most efficient use of resources to bulldoze 2000 viable units of middle income housing.
honte can probably express the thoughts more eloquently and level-headedly than I, but something about bulldozing these buildings just really grates me (and it's not like I have personal emotional attachment to these particular buildings....I'd say the same of bulldozing Prairie Shores, South Commons, etc. it just seems needlessly gratuitous).