Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_it59hyb wrote

Didn't they knock down a historical building?

I don't have any thoughts on the matter I've just read there was a lot of controversy around it.

6

orm518 t1_it5ehnx wrote

Read the article. It was not “historic” it was just old. It was nominally part of a historic register district but that’s just an honorific title not any kinda of mandate to protect it or statement that the building itself is of historic interest.

13

Dextrous456 t1_it6yjqe wrote

Actually, the building was considered historic, according to the nomination to the national register of historic places, which is on file at the state preservation commission. But the city didn't consider it worthy of preservation, which is all that matters in cases like this.

2

Halloweenie23 t1_it5mc3u wrote

I think any building that age is historic and becoming a rarity as time goes on. If he wanted to build a new building he should have found somewhere else to do it.

0

orm518 t1_itlq0wq wrote

He owned the building! And there was nothing deeming the structure worthy of preservation. We still have private property rights in America, as far as I'm aware. My friend lives in a 1785 farmhouse out in Lincoln, they could knock it down tomorrow if they got a town demo permit.

0

NotAFlamingo t1_it6vc9k wrote

IIRC the building was falling apart. Cracked foundation, among other major structural issues. Repairing and renovating it would have cost more and been more time consuming than replacing it, supposedly.

13

FunLife64 t1_it8eh12 wrote

I don’t think “supposedly” is necessary. People get all bent out of shape about historic buildings - but nobody wants to OR offers to pay for it. That block has cement buildings, apt buildings with plastic siding, etc - this idea its some picturesque block of a historic street is stilly.

3