|
TURobY
|
 |
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:20:42 am » |
|
I was biking in to work this morning, and as I entered downtown on 6th street, there was a building to my left that appeared to be in the process of demolition. Does anyone have any information on this? The building appeared to be in fine shape.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 02:54:18 pm by TURobY »
|
Logged
|
---Robert
|
|
|
|
Nic Nac
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2009, 11:43:00 am » |
|
A friend told me about this as well. Said there was some equipment down there - track hoe, etc. I think the building housed a company called something "Feilds" at 6th & Frankfort. Not sure what the company was.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2009, 12:04:00 pm » |
|
Fields Downs Randolph
The owner said that if the BID went through, she would demo her building because sitting on an unused property and refusing to sell it, renovate it, or lease it was too expensive.
I had heard that this building would've been cost prohibitive to remodel because of possible asbestos but don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelBates
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2009, 12:56:34 pm » |
|
That's the old Page Dairy building. Long ago (early '70s), they had a billboard with a clock on the roof advertising Page products -- very visible as you came into downtown on the 7th Street exit from the north.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PonderInc
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2009, 01:29:40 pm » |
|
That's a great old building that I always admire as I enter downtown and wonder why nobody's doing anything with it. (As it sits on one of the prime "gateways" to downtown via the expressways.)
Don't know about asbestos. I'm starting to wonder if that's just an excuse for "I'm land banking and too lazy/unimaginative to do anything else."
If property owners are truly tearing down buildings to avoid the downtown stadium improvement district, then this is a loophole which must immediately be closed.
The improvement district assessment for downtown surface parking lots should be triple the SF of the lot. (We'll assume a three story building, on average, was destroyed, to create the surface lot.) This would negate any economic "advantage" to destroy our few remaining downtown buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 01:49:21 pm » |
|
+1 Ponder! Discouraging surface parking lots/new vacant lots should be a priority in downtown planning. Tax structures are a prime motivator in planning. Are we talking about this building? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
TURobY
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2009, 01:52:18 pm » |
|
Yes, I didn't recognize it from the back. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
---Robert
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2009, 02:01:14 pm » |
|
+1 Ponder! Discouraging surface parking lots/new vacant lots should be a priority in downtown planning. Tax structures are a prime motivator in planning. Are we talking about this building?Yup |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SXSW
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2009, 02:48:01 pm » |
|
Yet another surface lot...or now prime clean-slate redevelopment opportunity? The 6th Street location is a good one, as it connects downtown to the Pearl.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cats Cats Cats
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2009, 02:48:59 pm » |
|
Maybe it will be parking
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TURobY
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2009, 02:53:48 pm » |
|
It's too far from anything to be successfully used as parking (that whole area is already primarily unused surface lots). I hate to say it, but I almost prefer it to be a surface lot than to see a boarded up building immediately as you enter downtown. Obviously, I'd rather have seen it developed into something usable though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
---Robert
|
|
|
|
DowntownNow
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2009, 03:22:03 pm » |
|
The building has been for sale for quite some time with no takers. The property owners first expressed ,at the first BID assessment Council meeting, that they would rather tear the building down than pay the new assessment and that the fee of the assessment would make it even harder to sell.
This was a concern among many Councilors that other property owners could follow similar suit, leaving downtown a flattened area where one and two level buildings once stood due to assessment costs versus remodel, sales, etc.
At the second meeting before the Council, the owner again stood to protest and when questioned by Eagleton as to the reason, the owner simply stated it was cost prohibitive to remodel due to roof failure and asbestos. He cited no other reason or the assessment being a factor, though he did object to the assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2009, 03:29:28 pm » |
|
Well, go on, insert blame for Mayor Taylor, DTN. You know you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
Cats Cats Cats
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2009, 03:33:45 pm » |
|
Cmon guys, more parking! Quit complaining!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TURobY
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2009, 03:40:02 pm » |
|
The cost of 'roof repairs' likely wouldn't have been nearly as costly had the owner kept up on maintenance of the building in the first place. Sadly, I fear that it is the same problem with many of the buildings downtown. People sat on them for so long without properly maintaining them or keeping them occupied, that they are too costly to remodel and too decrepit to buy/sell.
What's even worse is that some people inside the IDL think that they can still price these dilapidated properties at the same price as if they had maintained the property. I'd love to, and have been considering for a while, purchasing a building and starting a business there. But I have a difficult time trying to justfy spending some of the outrageous asking prices for a building that will likely have to be demolished anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
---Robert
|
|
|
|
