I'll help.

You have no idea about historic preservation if you think it was one person acting on a whim. Jebus.

And a crack in the stucco or brick doesn't matter. It's not load bearing there and can be fixed.

Stop making arguments around stuff you don't really know much about. This is like the third time you've been objectively wrong.

I think this building will probably end up being demolished due to its condition, but I really hope they at least try to save that brick wall (slowly dismantle) and any other salvageable pieces and incorporate them into a new building. If its in better condition than it appears, then the preservation office will definitely put up a fight.

I think a hotel would make the most sense for the site. You don't need parking, which is perfect since a garage would be near impossible with the site width (50' wide), and hotels do not need large floor plates. They could also reassemble the brick wall in the lobby and pay homage by displaying historic photographs of the old building.

Example: 31-Story Hyatt Centric Austin - 45' wide lot (corner)
https://mcwhinney.com/portfolio/hyatt-centric-austin/

Now this would be AMAZING!

Thanks. I was simply stating an opinion, an opinion that happened to be the opposite of yours.

I dont believe this building is worth saving. It's an eyesore. And even if it were to be 'restored', I dont see any economic viability for the structure. Would love to be wrong.


Oh - and while you continue to dish out your insulting commentary. Please note:

An opinion that is objectively wrong should not be held to the same merit as an opinion that is factual.

You are wrong, for the fifth time. It is clearly covered by a facade of painted stucco. Nobody has done any studies or anything like that we are aware of to see whether it is worth restoring.

Please tell me how I insulted you.

I was responding people to actually were insulting others. You being objectively wrong over and over again is not an insult.

Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.



I understand. I was clearly the one that pointed out the building was covered in stucco around 1935 and asked if anyone had any decent pre-35 pictures of the structure, beyond the one I posted, one page back.

That doesn't change the fact that if there is a viable plan for another building, then I think this particular structure can, and should, be removed.

If a wall or something can be saved/reused in the process, even better! That would be a smart move by the developer.



We are on the same page, sorry I misunderstood. As long as we think our opinion is 'objectively more correct' than anothers, we have free reign. Solid. :tup:

Busy agenda for this month's DVC virtual meeting.

DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS

• Astra project at 2nd Avenue between Van Buren & Fillmore (text amendment requests) ~ Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer (15 minutes)
• Hubbard project at Garfield & 6th St. ~ Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer (15 minutes)
• 1889 Steinegger Lodging House (potential demolition) ~ Roger Brevoort, Preserve Phoenix (10 minutes)

These are now easier to make since on Zoom. I'll be sure to post any new updates related to the projects above, including Steinneger Lodge

Not to get into the middle of this but I am quite curious how you feel one can have a "wrong" opinion. :shrug:

This isn't someone saying 2+2=19. This is a guy saying the building shouldn't stand in the way of whatever is that parcel's best use.

I don't have an opinion on the matter, but your little spat stuck me as entertaining and quite contradictory to your recent comments about people respecting each other.

That's an opinion, but saying things like one person alone added it to the national register are simply not true.

Dude. Lol, I know there isnt one guy sitting in an office somewhere adding all buildings to the register.

I reworded what YOU said to support my viewpoint.

Hey Fraud: you’re just a cranky bitch and you too, biggus (“I don’t want to insert myself, but...” Stirring up shit because you’re bored. Why don’t the both of you get a place together and be the contrarian weasel couple that you are..

Well that wasn't very mature.

:shrug:

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

:help:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fawd View Post
But either way. I'm fine with them tearing this particular one down.
You’re fine with it? Well that’s a fucking relief if YOUR fine wit it. What other historic building need to be razed to keep your skyscraper hardon from going soft?


No comment from the moderator for these comments?

I'm glad my opinion has given you relief. You're obviously not fine with this building being replaced. And that's okay!!



And you seem to have misunderstood. I never said it needed to by replaced by a skyscraper. I'd be open to any reasonable development beyond parking for this particular parcel.

Mature? You’re the oldest guy on here and you constantly start shit and get called out for it, so stop projecting.

You’re welcome!

Biggus really doesn't start much - he often has a differing viewpoint than the 'herd'... and there are a few on here that apparently don't have the mental capacity to handle that.

Its a shame, really. There are many who appreciate hearing all sides.

This has also been my feeling. Most of the time hard core hobbyists have extremely strong feelings about their hobby and anyone who disagrees is considered rude or stupid. That personality type is very prevalent on this site but hardly exclusive to this site. Star Trek fans will argue over how many episodes exist and which version of the USS Enterprise was the best. Basketball fans will argue vehemently over LeBron vs. Jordan.

It's entertainment 99.9% of the time. :shrug:

Chill out, guys. Some of you want the old building to stay and some of you don't. Some people like potatoes and some don't. Some people like Trump and some don't. This is life. Move on. No one's opinions are really that important in the end, mine included. I'm just a guy.