Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145
You make it sound as if the sign is being removed entirely not to be replaced. The metal scaffolding which supports the sign is in a serious state of deterioration and must be removed and replaced. Also, the new sign lettering itself will still have the vintage look, but state of the art lighting components, which don't require the current constant costly repair.
Billions have been spent over the past couple decades whether by the private or public sector in restoring and seismically upgrading historic structures. Huge restoration projects numbering in the dozens, such as the State Capitol, City Hall, Temple Square, numerous vintage towers, theaters, commercial and religious structures such as The Boston, The First Security, The Kearns, The Capitol Theater, The Great Tabernacle, Cathedral of the Madeleine, etc., etc. Not to forget entire districts of hundreds of historic homes in the Central and Downtown areas such as The Avenues, Capitol Hill, or Harvard/Yale have been restored to pristine condition. In short, if we were to highlight one structure deemed sadly irreversible, we could point out dozens more that were restored and often repurposed in Downtown Salt Lake City and the city proper.
|
You make a good point about what gems are still left. It doesn't make losing something special any less important to me.
Once it's gone, it's gone forever.
Why can't they re-wire the old Rio Grande sign? Why do they have to make a new "retro" sign when they can just keep using the antique one that they
already have?
I guess at least they aren't tearing down the old Rio Grand station itself, yet.
Though, with the way Salt Lake disposes of it's historic architecture, I wouldn't be surprised.
I used to live in the "Aves" back in the 90's.
In about `91-`92 I recall that the Avenues were rather run down, and I thought it was a shame to see those stately old houses chopped up into tenements, or outright abandoned.
It's hard to picture now.
Although, that's a double edged sword so to speak.
Once the Avenues was gentrified, I couldn't afford to live there. So, then I moved to the "Marmalade District", until the same thing happened there.
Sadly, I watched them tear down many old homes from the 19th century about 15-20 years ago. Only to be replaced with cheap plywood buildings.
But hey, they had granite counter tops, so, luxury, I guess.
The thing is, I doubt anything being built now will last 25 years, let alone over 100 years.
In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that the buildings being built now don't fall down after the first heavy rain.
But, as I've stated before, I guess that's the idea, they don't want them to last, so that they can then tear these new buildings down in a few years, and start the whole process over again.
Because, as a developer, they make their money in developing new buildings.
Even if there's nothing wrong with the current buildings, they'll say that replacing a window for example (a real example) is too costly, so they'll need to tear it down and rebuild, because that's somehow cheaper than fixing the broken window.
I wouldn't mind so much, if the buildings they were building now had any actual merit other than simply being "new". Looking at them, they are the absolute, bare-bones, cheapest things that they can slap together.
I was looking at some of the examples from the previous few pages, and Not only do the exteriors look like cookie cutter clones of everything else built recently, they then put the bare minimum into any kind of decor, structural materials, or any sense of aesthetics.
In fact, pretty much the only thing I saw that I kind of liked was a picture of a fountain with the water making some sort of sphere.
One picture showed an interior with bare, exposed concrete pillars, walls, and floors.
Just like a prison.
Is that what passes for quality these days?
Putting up some plain concrete walls and calling it good enough?
There was a time, long ago when people actually cared about how their buildings looked. But that actually cost money that they don't want to spend.
They don't care how bland/minimalist it looks as long as they save a few bucks, and apparently, neither does the general public.
The message is clear, they do not want to spend one extra penny that they don't have to.
I'm sure if they could get away with making these buildings out of cardboard they would, and in a few years, they just may.
Plywood and concrete may be deemed too expensive to build with.
Prev
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-sltrib.s3.amazonaws.com/public/7SUBOM5G7RAHBHL6URRFGGAFCQ.JPG)
Linear Mode
