A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From billy's workspace   

Architect urges saving United Way building

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/NEWS16/106232259/-1/NEWS

“I certainly commend their decision to build downtown. That’s important for our community,” said Mr. Konop, who offered the resolution.

“However, in an age where downtowns are competing with each other throughout the country to attract and retain young people and professionals, I don’t think it’s prudent to tear down buildings that have uniqueness and that have history in this community.”

Somebody please find me a young person that moves into or out of a city because of the uniqueness of the buildings. The commissioners/council/mayoron need to wake the hell up and smell the coffee. This cosmetic bullshit isnt going to keep or attract people!!

Find someone who moved into the city from elsewhere and ask them why they came here. I'd bet 99% of them would say "FOR A JOB".

Something else I found funny"

“We have programs that recycle bottles. We should be able to recycle buildings.”

To recycle a plastic bottle, you clean it, shred it, and melt it down and make something completely different out of it...

Sounds pretty much just exactly what the United way wants to do!!

created by billy on Aug 20, 2008 at 08:15:11 am     Comments: 16

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Historic buildings should be preserved whenever possible but I think we need get a little carried away with the label "Historic". The reason for this is that the US is still a young nation and we don't have a whole lot of history to go around which leaves us clinging to every scrap we can find. In Europe they have structures thousands of years old, cultural centers providing a glance into a previous time and way of life and revealing the starting point from which we ourselves have descended. In Toledo we are trying to save a building five years younger than Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder. If the United Way needs to cut costs so that they can help more people, why not let them.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Aug 20, 2008 at 08:54:39 am     #



Note theyre not even saying it's Historic - they think it's their job to dictate what the United Way should do with their own property not because of it's historic value, but because the building is "unique".

Tell me, other than say, manufactured housing, arent pretty much ALL buildings 'unique' in some way?

posted by billy on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:02:14 am     #



The part about this that annoys me is why did they let it get into this condition in the first place? My Dad was an engineer and commercial property consultant. Good companies always began budgeting for both routine maintainence and major maintenance items, like a roof, from the day they would take possesion of a building. Shame on them.

It's too late now. Take it down. But I wouldn't give United Way a Lucas County Industrial Develpoment Bond Issue to assist in putting up any new building, if they ask. They put themselves in this position. Let them get themselves out.

posted by holland on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:29:15 am     #



I used to work in the building 20 years ago. It was dark and moldy smelling then. Although it has an elevator, it's accessibility for people with disabilities was limited too.

posted by corky on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:03:43 am     #



They put themselves in this position. Let them get themselves out.

??? where did that bond idea come from? UW WANTS to take care of their own issues - its the politicians who are f*cking it up!!

posted by billy on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:20:42 am     #



I don't know why the Blade has their panties in a twist about saving this building. I've worked in architecture and real estate development in Chicago, and I can tell you that from an architectural perspective, it is a dog that is no more architecturally significant than the Lucas County Jail. The rendering of the new building looks sharp. The Blade and Konop should be happy that United Way is willing to stay downtown to begin with. The new building will be much cheaper to operate, which means that the United Way will be able to put more resources to where it belongs: the people they help every day.

posted by Ace_Face on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:03 am     #



The bond idea has NOT come up. I said " if they ask". It's just a concern I have. Gear down billy and don't read into a post what isn't there.

posted by holland on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:44:43 am     #



Sure it will be cheaper to run AFTER it is built. Where are the millions coming from for the new building? Are they using monies I donate every year to help the needy? I don’t give that money for pretty offices. And why do they pay Kitson 135k a year for running a charity? That’s what I have a problem with.

posted by Ryan on Aug 20, 2008 at 12:16:28 pm     #



i worked in the building 20 years ago and concur with corky - just dreadful and getting it ADA compliant would cost a fortune. further, there are very few windows and all of the exterior walls have sharp angles that make them nearly impossible to make into useable spaces.

much of the desire to keep the building is actually in admiration for its architect, byron west. but architecturally significant - no. architects who speak out to save it are, i would guess, primarily looking to cozy up for the contract to rehab it or looking for some other contract - therefore they will support their pol.

posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26:32 pm     #



Sure it will be cheaper to run AFTER it is built. Where are the millions coming from for the new building?

According to the articles I read, the cost to demolish and rebuild are equivalent or less than the cost to rehab. Then they will start saving tens of thousands in maintenance costs. As for the funds, they are going to tap their general fund and then a targeted capital campaign.

posted by Ace_Face on Aug 20, 2008 at 02:34:24 pm     #



To be more specific, Kitson says there is a capital fund for this project and that fund, along with a capital campaign, will pay for the building. In other words, our donations will not go toward the cost.

posted by Ace_Face on Aug 20, 2008 at 03:30:46 pm     #



Where did the capital fund come from?

posted by Ryan on Aug 20, 2008 at 03:32:02 pm     #



I love historic architecture, but I'm not sure that this building fits the definition. I always thought that the building itself was kind of "depressing" too. All dark and brown and dreary. Bleck!

posted by corky on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:14:40 pm     #



"downtowns are competing with each other throughout the country to attract and retain young people"

I think the reason more young professionals (who don't have kids) don't live downtown is the lack of areas to walk, enjoy the sun, exercise a pet, etc.

Wouldn't the park that UW is suggesting be built on the old building site improve the lifestyle downtown. Wouldn't some additional "green space" encourage young professionals to move to a downtown condo. IF, IF IF IF!! The park was well lit, maintained, and SAFE AFTER 8 pm!!

TAHL

posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Aug 21, 2008 at 07:53:46 am     #



Per Kitson's letter to the Blah:

The new building will be paid for by our Board Designated Fund, an endowment-like fund established by community leaders in the mid-1970s.

posted by Ace_Face on Aug 21, 2008 at 09:28:34 am     #



the building is also a suburban office building plopped down in the middle of an urban setting - primary entrance in the rear facing a sea of surface parking surrounded by grass and bushes. the grass and tree setting is fine only for the most important civic uses such as the courthouse, but for an office building it is ant-urban. surface parking lots stink - they sap the life out of our downtown.

posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Aug 21, 2008 at 02:08:28 pm     #