Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
fawkina wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:01 PM:
To recycle and reuse or demolish and build from scratch? Which uses more resources? If it is demolished I hope as many materials will be salvaged as can be.
I think a major problem in modern American culture is that we are wasteful without even thinking twice.
Here in Portland many old buildings have recently undergone renovations (McMenamin's, etc..) instead of demolition and have been hugely successful. They are turning an old disgusting bathhouse into a classy hotel for example.
I think a major problem in modern American culture is that we are wasteful without even thinking twice.
Here in Portland many old buildings have recently undergone renovations (McMenamin's, etc..) instead of demolition and have been hugely successful. They are turning an old disgusting bathhouse into a classy hotel for example.
Gene wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:38 PM:
Fawkina, the problem with your thinking is that it isn't grounded in reality. No one is going to move into an old building that needs a ton of repairs when they could get a new one built much cheaper. A building that is maybe 500 or 600 years old and housed something of importance is worth saving. Not junk. We don't even have "old" building in the West unless you visit Ghost Towns where exciting events from our recent history are located. I don't know even one building here that can claim "Washington slept here" or even, "Clinton slept here". I can remember some really nice places that I visited in the 50's that are gone now. The problem is, they were only important to me and I am not that important. Even my wife would agree.
fawkina wrote on Jun 3, 2009 1:03 AM:
Board it up, preserve the shell. The interior would need to be gutted by any prospective investor anyway. It is a complete waste to demolish an existing building of its size, of building materials AND money.
I agree it isn't the most beautiful of the old buildings downtown, but the style of architecture is more classic and fits in with the historical nature of the neighborhood. Many of the new structures around the Bay Area are hideous and have no architectural merit. I would hate to see some low-rise pole building with a parking lot in front replace the building.
However, Steve Pickering, it is unlikely that any new structure would be constructed (funded by the city), especially after all of the crying and moaning over the visitor's center.
It is ludicrous to suggest tearing down the Old City Hall. That is the same mindset of 1950's and '60s developers who destroyed many of our country's most beautiful historic neighborhoods to replace with shopping malls and project housing.
I agree it isn't the most beautiful of the old buildings downtown, but the style of architecture is more classic and fits in with the historical nature of the neighborhood. Many of the new structures around the Bay Area are hideous and have no architectural merit. I would hate to see some low-rise pole building with a parking lot in front replace the building.
However, Steve Pickering, it is unlikely that any new structure would be constructed (funded by the city), especially after all of the crying and moaning over the visitor's center.
It is ludicrous to suggest tearing down the Old City Hall. That is the same mindset of 1950's and '60s developers who destroyed many of our country's most beautiful historic neighborhoods to replace with shopping malls and project housing.
Rebecca1 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:20 PM:
To MoonPenny: I remember going to Saturday Matinees at that theatre in the Lockhart Building in the 50's, Gene Autry, etc., a good thing but the building does not hold up for the long run, I think before the Lockharts did Pete & Jeannie Gray have a furniture store there on 1st floor where they sold that horrible stapled together Pink couches before they went bankrupt & moved to Albany?
Rebecca1 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:16 PM:
To Steve Pickering: Obviously you have not been trained to "see" Real Estate, that Old City Hall you want demolished still has the class it was built for, & far outweighs that green eyesore just a block away, you people don't know how to spend your money, admittingly, the Fire station part is newer & not quite as classy, still don't know how you get the money to build that new fire hall in a residential neighborhood?
1313 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 6:40 PM:
I agree with Steve, tear down the whole block and start over with something nice. Nothing there worth saving, a waste of money.
Steve Pickering wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:52 AM:
My wife and I have known the Lockhart family for years (56 and 39 respectively) and I think Ol' Gordon would say “Tear it down. It isn't an antique”. At least one family member told us it they could not get rid of it fast enough, it is a wreck.
Take the Old City Hall with it, and the soon to be Old Fire Station. Spend some Urban Renewal dollars on a community facility on the site.
Take the Old City Hall with it, and the soon to be Old Fire Station. Spend some Urban Renewal dollars on a community facility on the site.
m00npenny wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:09 AM:
Actually it used to be a movie house. Upstairs on the Central side, there are what used to be apartments. The bathroom fixtures are still there (or were), clawfoot tubs, 2 part commodes and even radiators. In another area, theres wood benches that stagger up, its where the audience would be sitting, while in front of them is a stage, probably for live performances. If the city does decide to save it, there needs to be a committe that can get the grants and donations to "restore" it. Not public money.
Rebecca1 wrote on Jun 1, 2009 8:50 PM:
As an old local yokal who now lives in North Bend, that Lockhart Building from what I can see from the outside does not deserve to have any more of the Public's money spent on it, putting a lien on the property doesn't mean you will recover that money, some how or another making it a Park or even a Parking Lot ( although there seems to be plenty of that downtown)certainly would be best, it doesn't have that Classical historical feel worth the upgrades.
m00npenny wrote on Jun 1, 2009 5:11 PM:
I worked for a business in that was in that building for over 2 years. It will make a better parking lot. And as for the deadbeats on the LLC, sue them. We have their contact information. No Hub building, its way too expensive. A modular office off on the parking lot would make more sense and would gain more support from the community.
fawkina wrote on Jun 1, 2009 4:46 PM:
What would be your grand idea for the site, "brutal truth" and Gene?
Having a vacant dusty lot surrounded by a chain link fence? Stunning.
I doubt anything new would be built on the site which would decentralize the aesthetics of downtown.
Board it up until the economy improves and it gets bought and developed by some "rich Californian." This would save more of your precious tax dollars anyway.
Or would you rather just tear down every historic building in downtown and replace them with parking lots and a mega-Walmart with no sidewalks?
Having a vacant dusty lot surrounded by a chain link fence? Stunning.
I doubt anything new would be built on the site which would decentralize the aesthetics of downtown.
Board it up until the economy improves and it gets bought and developed by some "rich Californian." This would save more of your precious tax dollars anyway.
Or would you rather just tear down every historic building in downtown and replace them with parking lots and a mega-Walmart with no sidewalks?
The Brutal Truth wrote on Jun 1, 2009 2:11 PM:
You're right. Just leave it alone, old & run down, whilst waxing nostalgiac over it.
Gene wrote on Jun 1, 2009 2:04 PM:
What the heck is so historical about the building? Just because some building was built a 100 years ago doesn't make it valuable. In this case it is a piece of history that doesn't have any. Get rid of it and stop wasting money on stupid projects.
Rebecca1 wrote on Jun 1, 2009 1:01 PM:
It's still amazing to me that with all that needs to be done any one would consider wasting all that money on a new visitor's center just because you don't want the visitors to use the bathroom inside of it now, right? Or is it because the owner's of the The Hub will be able to get all of that rent money???
fawkina wrote on Jun 1, 2009 12:43 PM:
"Most of the old buildings downtown are eye-sores."
Downtown Coos Bay has a high concentration of historic buildings and many consider this to the the most architecturally striking area in the Bay Area.
"Level it"
And do what, have it become a fenced-off dirt lot or a surface parking lot? I doubt it would be redeveloped anytime soon. Surely that wouldn't be an eyesore.
Ideas like yours prove why (most) of the Bay Area outside of downtown CB is an eyesore. Look at Detroit and see the effects of demolishing huge historic areas.
Please take a moment to learn something about urban planning and historical relevance.
Downtown Coos Bay has a high concentration of historic buildings and many consider this to the the most architecturally striking area in the Bay Area.
"Level it"
And do what, have it become a fenced-off dirt lot or a surface parking lot? I doubt it would be redeveloped anytime soon. Surely that wouldn't be an eyesore.
Ideas like yours prove why (most) of the Bay Area outside of downtown CB is an eyesore. Look at Detroit and see the effects of demolishing huge historic areas.
Please take a moment to learn something about urban planning and historical relevance.
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines