More CentrePointe questions worth asking
Tom,
I continue to follow the conversation on your blog about CentrePointe with great interest.
Most of the comments, pro and con, are thoughtful and, I hope, move us closer to a compromise that will realize much of the developer’s vision while preserving the historic, architectural and cultural character of this block that many in Lexington treasure.
A couple of the commentators raised some very good questions that I thought were worth addressing.
On April 14 “UGDAY” wrote:
“Do any of you really believe that any of the old buildings could withstand the required blasting to dig the underground parking? The buildings are past their prime, they are beyond the tipping point where rehabilitation could make them profitable. How is one to recoup the cost to restore these buildings?”
These are good questions that merit much more discussion than a couple of lines here. Perhaps the best way to start, though, is with a few more questions.
Are there examples in Lexington, in Kentucky, or around the United States of large in-fill developments placed adjacent to historic buildings?
Have the developers prepared any expert engineering studies on these questions that they would share with the public?
Are there any independent engineering studies that would shed light on this question?
What is the actual square foot cost to restore some of the older and architecturally significant buildings on this block?
Have the developers investigated this? Have they prepared any feasibility studies on this issue that they would share with the public?
What is the square foot cost of new construction associated with CentrePointe?
How do these two costs compare?
Most of the existing significant buildings on this block are eligible for large state and federal tax credits to help fund rehabilitation.
More than 18 months ago, the Director of the Kentucky Heritage Council and the President of the Blue Grass Trust met with the developers to discuss the rumors then circulating about this project. Both the Heritage Council and the Blue Grass Trust made their concerns clear regarding the importance of incorporating the preservation of some of the significant buildings into any development. They also explained to the developers that many of the buildings on the block would be eligible for state and federal historic rehabilitation tax credits.
Have the developers contacted the Kentucky Heritage Council to learn more about how these tax credits could help to defray the costs of rehabilitation?
On April 16 “Obrian” writes:
“Where…are those historic old buildings on this block?”
Preserve Lexington has answered this question many times, in public and in writing. And I believe many of your commentators have addressed this as well. But we are more than happy to answer this question again.
At least 10 buildings on this block are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Eligibility for the National Register is the benchmark locally and nationally for determining the significance of a building. Determinations of eligibility are made by professional architectural historians.
In making these determinations, architectural historians consider the history of a building, the architecture of a building, and the evolution of that architecture over time. Each of these factors tells a story about a specific building, and about the time and culture that produced that building and the changes to it over time.
Do we erase that story, do we erase that history and architecture, or do we marry it with a vision of our future?
Do we repeat the development mistakes of the past, or do we, along with vibrant cities like Charleston and Asheville and Ann Arbor, wed yesterday with tomorrow?
I hope that my comments and questions will be helpful in moving us a step further from pointless debate and a step closer to compromise.
Sincerely,
Hayward Wilkirson
President of the Board of Directors
Preserve Lexington
RSS Feed
April 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Hayward,
I would ask the same questions of you. Before you created this organization to block (no pun intended) progress for revitalization of this warzone, did Preserve Lexington make any effort to compile data or cost analysis for presentation to the Webbs/Rosenberg? I find it somewhat troubling to put forward the alleged efforts of the Heritage Council and Bluegrass trust in a column written by Preserve Lexington. The Webbs have a cornucopia of experience in planning and building large projects across the nation as well as Lexington. How many large projects has Preserve Lexington created or preserved? In fact, specifically to Preserve Lexington, how many historic structures has your organization actually preserved? The Webbs restored and saved over 14 historic structures downtown in Victorian Square. While that vision was premature, how about acknowledging that FACT. If we were to keep score, I am going to guess the tally will be 14-0, in favor of the Webbs. They have experience on both sides of this issue. Preserve Lexington has no experience in restoring historic commercial buildings or building new ones. To suggest that an engineering study is needed to prove the buildings won’t stand up to the vibration does not speak well of the experience of the organization. If your organization is committed to the preservation of the block, perhaps you should hire an engineer to do some studies. The only reason the Webbs wouldn’t allow this guy on the property would be a concern for the safety of the engineer, because entering those buildings could make ones life history.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Tim.
I believe in adaptive reuse of older buildings and the restoration of the noteworthy ones but the track record here in Lexington is a poor one.
In Victorian Square, the back half of the Desha’s building collapsed and was rebuilt like new and the wall around the skywalk is mostly new construction. The second story retail, the ones without a street presence, are mostly vacant and can’t keep tenants, so we can assume that second story retail doesn’t work well in the downtown area. How about office space? Does it work here? Well the don’t seem to clamoring for it so I don’t think so. So what we have left is residential, and the requirements for ingress and egress are staggering, so very few want to try that. It was tried in the Ades Dry Goods remodel and that is all office now, even after a $1.2 Million grant from the Federal Housing people.
The question is: How many remodels of older(not just historic) buildings into something they were not originally built for, have been successful and I mean in the long run? Now, don’t point at the Government Center and say a success story, that building has cost more in long and short term repairs than a new building would have cost in 1980, and the latest budget shows that we can’t afford to do the repairs needed NOW. That is not a success. Can you show me one?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Peter B,
My sentiments exactly. Bulldoze them.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Tim:
I think you are employing some specious logic.
The reasons for and the timing of the founding of Preserve Lexington do not matter in this argument. If it was founded specifically to try to oppose what some deem a bad project, then so be it. Remember that the Bluegrass Trust was founded in response to a threat (destruction of the Hunt-Morgan House). The circumstances which led to the founding of Preserve Lexington weren’t invented by Mr. Wilkirson or anyone, but in response to nothing more than rumors of this project that was formed in near complete secrecy (from all I’ve read) until it was sprung on the public in March. Thus, the Webbs et. al. are the fathers of this child, because of their unwillingness to publicly say what they had in mind. To many, it would seem that Preserve Lexington’s paranoia was well-founded.
Secondly, I don’t really see why the burden of proof (engineering studies, etc.) should be on a group like Preserve Lexington. The developers of this project are asking for quite alot: the tearing down of historic fabric; replacing it with something on a much larger scale; TIF financing, tax rebates, etc. As part of this process, they have to ask the city for permission to remove buildings within the Courthouse Overlay Zone. This process does (as it should) show that the rehabilitation and reuse of the buildings is an economic impossibility - instead of simply “we want to tear them down to put up something else.”
That you would ask, even rhetorically, how many large-scale projects Preserve Lexington has done, and then suggesting the Webbs “win” that battle suggests you are simply reaching at straws to discredit them. Preserve Lexington is a not-for-profit barely a year old; it’s purpose is to serve as a rallying point (when no one else was) for a rumored development that threatened buildings and much-loved businesses inside these buildings. Obviously, the Webbs do have more experience in this field, and thus, all the things Mr. Wilkirson asked above (and that you asked of Preserve Lexington) should be “old hat” to them by now.
Patrick
(A student of preservation, but not on Preserve Lexington’s payroll)
April 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Patrick,
Interesting that you feel it necessary to sign off by stating you are not on Preserve Lexington’s payroll. Speaking of payroll, for those that are interested, Preserve Lexington’s own Jon Eric Thomason, 3rd District candidate for City Council has amassed a campaign warchest of $740.00 as of 12/31/07. While $350.00 of it was his own money, the only other identified donors were not from Lexington. If fact, one of them was from Atlanta! Then there are those “un-itemized” cash donations. It will be interesting to see what his next campaign report holds.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Tim,
As a columnist, I both report and express opinions. That’s my job. I made my views on CentrePointe and the larger issues of development in Lexington pretty clear two Sundays ago. You are free to agree or disagree with my views.
I created this blog so everyone else could have their say on local and state issues. It quickly became the place to discuss CentrePointe.
I’ve been happy to post letters from people directly involved in the CentrePointe debate – Dudley Webb and leaders of Preserve Lexington and the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation. All of them have been thoughtful and articulate in stating their views. I think they have appreciated having a public forum where they could make their case, in full and unedited. And I think readers have become better informed as a result.
I posted Robert Snyder’s design concept because I thought it was an interesting, thoughtful approach to a compromise. I think it has enhanced the public conversation and allowed people to begin visualizing alternatives. I’m willing to post other serious, thoughtful concepts, too.
People are free in this blog’s comment fields to state their opinions, as you have done freely and anonymously more than a dozen times. I’m sorry you’re so unhappy. But when you attack people because you disagree with them, you just make yourself look foolish.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Practice what you preach Tom. At least you see me coming. I don’t pull punches when it comes to my opinions or cloak my purposes under the guise of journalism. You try to justify your bias by identifying yourself aa a “columnist”, which means that you can choose to leave out known facts or put your own slant on the truth. The problem here is that I am just a concerned citizen, whose opinion may or may not account for anything. You are a public figure and journalist who, whether you agree or not, should be held to a higher standard with regard to your columns and your views because the majority of the general public doesn’t know the difference between an article and your columns. As you can see, many people question your fairness on this blog and have expressed opinions. I find it laughable that you single me out as attacking people becuase I am vehement in my view. Where were you when bloggers were openly, and falsely saying slanderous and vicious things about Dudley Webb, his family and his company? As I have mentioned before, those on the losing side of the issue confuse debate with “attack”. I also resent the fact that by your response, you are attempting to discourage my freedom to speak on this matter. As a jounalist, you should prize this constitutional right. However, when people question you or write against your cause, you seem to forget that right.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Well, Tim, I don’t know what to do but disagree with all of your characterizations. Calling journalists biased because their work doesn’t support your biases is the oldest trick in the book. “Many” people on this blog have not questioned my fairness; only you and one or two others. What we have is a disagreement on the issues, and even on what the issues should be. But that’s OK.
And let me be clear: I’m not attempting to discourage anyone’s freedom to speak. In fact, I encourage everyone with views on all sides of this or any other topic to come on here and write them.
But I also encourage you and several others to stop making personal attacks against each other, against me and against Dudley Webb and the other players in this controversy. Petty personal attacks are not productive discussion. And, because the people making them always want to do so anonymously, they’re simply foolish.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
It is pluperfectly clear where your bias has been and continues to be in regards to the Centrepointe issue. You are flat out against it. We are in the midst of very tough economic times. This project would serve as a catalyst to assist our community through these tough times. It would supply jobs, raw materials would be purchased, etc., etc., etc..
Are you a card holding member of preservelexington.org? Friendly with Hayward or Eric? Are you trying to win a pulitzer prize?
April 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Tom,
You continue to demonstrate your propensity for not telling the truth. It’s not “one or two others”. It’s five people that have questioned your articles and this blog. This may not seem to be a lot to you, but remember that this blog should not be about Tom Eblen, it should be about Centrepoint and the players pro and con. Therefore, five people questioning your reputation for truth and veracity seems substantial. It is unfortunate that people like me must expend energy off topic to make sure a journalist is reminded that a fair and balanced approach is necessary due to his status in the public eye.
However, I think you enjoy controversy and encourage postings of whatever type to legitimize your blog. Your April 7th entry states “THANKS TO THE CONTROVERSY over the proposed Centrepointe development in downtown Lexington, the Bluegrass and Beyond has been read more than 8600 times since last Sunday, and 160 comments have been left. We’re off to a great start, thanks to you.”(Emphasis Added)
It is extremely hypocritical that you take such umbrage with anonymous postings. It is those same rights that journalists go to jail for. Respectible journalists have been imprisoned for refusing to name their sources. Nevertheless, I will reveal my identity if it will stop your namecalling. I am Tim Eblen (no relation). I am President of Deserve Lexington, an unincorporated non-profit organization that provides community based support to progressive business ventures which endeavor to provide jobs, increase the tax base, and bring vibrant new eateries, accomodations and respectible entertainment venues downtown.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Thank you Tom for asking that the personal attacks stop. I’ve been coming here to truly educate myself on this matter and have been so discouraged by some of the insanity. Don’t people realize that when they start spouting off with the crazy attacks, they lose their credibility?
April 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Tom,
Obviously I’m not Tim Eblen. And no, I don’t run an organization called Deserve Lexington. My point is that there is nothing wrong with anonymity as anyone on this blog can put any name down, whether it is their real name or not. Speaking of anonymity, while perusing the Preserve Lexington website, to attempt to understand their viewpoint, I noticed that the founders/directors/staff of this organization are not identified on the website. You click on “About” and don’t find anything that identifies the organizers. We know that Hayward Wilkirson and Jon Eric Thomason are involved because of this blog. But I don’t see anything on the site about Janie Rice Brother, Amanda Kerley, or Jackie Horlbeck’s involvment. They are listed on the Secretary of State’s website but not on the website for their own company. I wonder if they have blogged here without using their real name? I don’t know but would certainly like to know?
April 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Tom,
You mention Rob Snyder’s design, in which he incorporates the buildings at issue. It seems that he made his views known a couple of years ago. Here is an excerpt from his post on Preserve Lexington’s blog site in response to a survey by the organization:
Preserve Lexington survey result – 11/14/06 by Rob Snyder
“1) When you think of downtown Lexington, what do do you visually think of? What do you enjoy seeing downtown and what do you remember when you’ve left?
Downtown Lexington is incomplete. There is too much emptiness. The mixed-use urban vibrancy and density of great cities all over the world is spatially discontinuous and fragmented in Lexington from too many surface parking lots, too few downtown residences, too many “setbacks”, too many poorly designed modern buildings that turn away from the life of the street, and too many mediocre old buildings that remain in the heart of the city for no other reason than that they are old, and that the economy of the downtown is still relatively depressed.
We need to do everything possible to make downtown more alive. This sometimes means tearing down old buildings. We need to distinguish between good or great buildings, too many of which have been senselessly destroyed, and poor or mediocre buildings that could just as well be replaced by something better, if we can define and raise the standard of architectural and urban design so that what is built new is better than what was replaced.”
Maybe he meant other “mediocre old buildings” should be eradicated and not the Dame etc. I do like the fact that he wanted to cure a depressed downtown economy. When did the Dame establish themselves? Prior to November of 2006, right?
April 20th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Tim (and all):
I am not advocating the preservation of the buildings just to be a thorn in the side of the Webb/Rosenberg group; I do so because I think preservation generally makes economic sense. Rehabilitation of these buildings would create jobs; it would create a buzz and excitement of its own; it could lead to other building owners rehabbing their own buildings (and thus, more jobs).
Unlike many people who are advocating the preservation of the buildings, I long ago saw the sense of letting something tall be built if it could be done in a way that meant other buildings were spared - thus, a tall building “like” the present design on a pedestal that blended with the rest of the block was, to my mind, a reasonable compromise.
Likewise, I am not deluding myself by thinking that if tomorrow the developers “saw the light” and spared the buildings and rehabbed them, that the Dame, Busters, Mia’s, etc. would continue as if nothing had happened. Whether I like to admit it or not, those businesses are toast. Would you rehab the building and then rent it back to Busters, or the Dame, or Mia’s? Maybe and maybe not. But the rehabbing itself would make the spaces more desirable, and thus, the rents would go up, and thus…well, you see where this is going. Capitalism at work.
As for a space for the Dame - I wonder if anyone has approached the congregation of “Everybody’s Church” on Broadway? I don’t know the size of the congregation, but maybe the building is too big for them. Or better building can be found for them elsewhere (ie: I remember reading about the Baptist church between Main and Short having too few people for too big of a space). The point is, if it works out, that building could then serve as a new Dame, along the lines of the venue “Sanctuary” in Atlanta.
Like Tim (and Tom and everyone else) I want what’s best for Lexington and what helps us the most and hurts us the least. This doesn’t have to be a fight about preservation versus progress - the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Creative minds can find a way to have BOTH.
Patrick
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Mr. Wilkerson,
In a previous article on this web site Mr. Webb states,
“the City of Lexington, The Bluegrass Trust, Preserve Lexington and most other affected special interest groups have been aware of this proposed project for more than 18 months now. Interestingly enough, during this period, we have had numerous meetings with them to review our proposed plans for this block. Not once did any of these people voice their opposition to the project or express concerns about it until about a month ago when the imminent closing of The Dame was publicly announced. ”
Is this true? if it is, I am not trying to discredit your efforts but I would like to know why these organizations didn’t voice these concerns.
I do not agree with the current proposal and I hope that these buildings can be integrated with a more appealing design.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Matt,
I’m happy to answer your question.
It is not quite accurate to state that ‘the City of Lexington, The Bluegrass Trust, Preserve Lexington and most other affected special interest groups have been aware of this proposed project for more than 18 months now. Interestingly enough, during this period, we have had numerous meetings with them to review our proposed plans for this block. Not once did any of these people voice their opposition to the project or express concerns until about a month ago….’
While the ‘City of Lexington’ and the DDA may have been aware of this project, for the rest of Lexington CentrePointe was nothing but a rumour until several weeks ago. When the rumor first surfaced, various inquiries were made of the DDA by organizations and by private individuals. I believe that the DDA was not forthcoming with any details in response to these inquiries. Had this process been more transparent at that time, perhaps we would not be having this city-wide debate now.
Some 18 months ago, representatives of the Blue Grass Trust and the Kentucky Heritage Council did, in fact, meet with the developer. It is my understanding that the purpose of this meeting was four-fold: to learn more about the project; to remind the developer that many of the buildings on this block fall within the Courthouse Area overlay; to inform the developer that many of the buildings on the block in question are significant; and to inform the developer that these significant buildings are potentially eligible for state and federal preservation tax credits. I think it would be fair to say that a discussion of these issues constitutes an expression of concern.
I believe that the Blue Grass Trust has referenced this meeting in some of its public statements.
Preserve Lexington did not exist at the time of this meeting, but was formed in the weeks and months preceeding the public unveiling of the CentrePointe project.
The developer may have had ‘numerous meetings’ with the DDA or other representatives of the LFUCG. I do not know if the DDA or other representative of the LFUCG expressed concerns about the CentrePointe project.
I have no knowledge of any other meetings.
I hope this answers your questions.
Sincerely,
Hayward Wilkirson
April 24th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Matt,
I don’t think Hayward is being entirely accurate with you. He says Preserve Lexington “was formed in the weeks and months preceeding the public unveiling of the CentrePointe project.” While not an outright lie, it is definitely a distortion of the whole truth. Preserve Lexington LLC was, according to the Secretary of States website, formed in December of 2006, OVER ONE YEAR BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS ANNOUNCED! Additionally, Hayward used to be a Director at the Bluegrass Trust, and I am sure was in communication with those representative regarding the proposed project. Also, the blogs at Preserve Lexington’s website contain interviews from Teresa Isaac regarding development of this block downtown. The reporter specificially asks questions of the then Mayor about the hotel project to be developed on the block.
Preserve Lexington has been around since 2006 but, as Dudley stated, they didn’t even attempt to meet with him until now, when the project needs to move forward on its timeline. These are the type of tactics used by obstinate activists, who lay in wait for a positive project to become active, so they may act to block its development. With the knowledge therse groups had before hand, this type of move doesn’t support the claim that they wish to compromise. I don’t know where he learned his appoach to dealing with issues in a compromising fashion, but this certainly doesn’t seem like a good faith approach to handling this situation. Hayward spent a couple of years in Nicaragua in the early 90’s for an activist group there. Maybe that’s where he picked it up.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
very very interesting information, tim. if preserve lexington wasn’t even on the webb radar until recent weeks and months- how could they have ever approached them with their plans? clearly, it was preserve lexington’s responsibility to present their initiatives and they knowingly defaulted. therefore, they really have NO BUSINESS complaining about things now. and really the same goes for the BGT if they didn’t do anything either back then either. preserve lex should be ashamed of its campaign to make the developers look like the evil ones when they have been unabashadly disorganized and frankly, deceitful.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Accusations from pseudonymous posters lack credibility. I will leave it to the readers of this blog to judge the credibility, motives and interests of all pseudonymous posters, whether they support or oppose the CentrePointe development.
I will simply reiterate what I have written before. Preserve Lexington has never depicted the developers as ‘evil’. To the contrary, we have asked all participants in this debate to avoid personal commentary of a slanderous nature. The attempt to demonize those with whom we disagree is a distraction from the real issues. Neither Mr. Webb nor Preserve Lexington can be held responsible for the libelous commentary of pseudonymous posters.
As for prior meetings with the developers, I will repeat what I have written above. Representatives of Kentucky’s oldest and most respected preservation organizations, the Kentucky Heritage Council and the Blue Grass Trust, met with the CentrePointe developers many, many months before this project was unveiled to the community. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the developers of concerns related to the significant buildings on this block.
The developers and the DDA have been aware of these concerns for more than 18 months. Had they addressed these concerns when first raised, and had the city-funded DDA insisted upon a more transparent process, perhaps we would not now find ourselves at this juncture.
Sincerely,
Hayward Wilkirson
April 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Hayward,
Don’t tase us bro! The overwhelming majority of posters regarding this issues are anonymous. (I’m secretly wondering if Preserve Lexington’s own folks have posted anonymously).Also, I venture to guess that many of the readers of this blog are those same anonymous posters. I find it ironic that you only come out with this statement when people queston your viewpoint.
Instead of reiterating the same recycled argument, why don’t you anwer this question: Given the fact that Preserve Lexington was created in 2006, isn’t it disingenuous to tell folks that Preserve Lexington was formed in the “weeks and months” preceding the public unveiling of the project? That’s technically true if you were to say 13 months, but you didn’t. Credibility is found in a name only if the statements are based in truth and have merit. I think what you wrote to Matt was purposely misleading, which seems to point directly to your credibility. Statements like that also reflect negatively on your organization. Now tell me……am I lying?
Finally, these comments whether they be positive, negative, smart, dumb, different are encouraged to promote discussion among people interested in Lexington’s future. Attacking those persons who wish to share their views now, after the hundreds of other posts, seems elitist. Threatening a libel suit, through implication, is way over the top, especially when truth is the ultimate defense.
April 26th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Tim,
How old are you?
What kind of work do you do?
Do you believe a great project can be developed on this block AND that some of the historic buildings can be adaptively re-used?
April 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Tim, while you wave your “ironic” nad “disingenuous” flags around for no other reason than to stir up hate and discontent, other people donate their time and effort to things they care about. Preserve Lexington is made of people like that.
Your reverse engineering of the timeline of their organization is juvenile and means absolutely nothing. You are dismissing people and questioning their motives based on your own misinterpretation of incomplete information. Why don’t you come out of your self-contained ivory tower and meet some real people who care about real things.
What kind of work do you do, Tim?
How old are you?
Do you believe it is possible to develop a great project on this block AND to adaptively re-use some of the historic buildings on site?
April 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Preserve Lexington has said from the very first day this project was revealed (prior to which it was held strictly confidential by the Webbs) that it IS possible to do both.
You have ignored this and engaged in a campaign of distortion and polarization.
Instead of listening and incorporating good ideas and moving the project forward as quickly as possible you have disrespected good people and attempted to tear down their efforts.
I guess you think its a funny game.
I don’t.
I think you contribute nothing.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
According to Tim, not only is it impossible to do a great project on this block that incorporates some fo the historic buildings,
but also according to Tim, anyone who thinks it IS possible either lacks credibility, is unqualified, is possibly communist, has a hidden agenda, is disingenuous . . . and so on.
While on the other hand, those who advocate a “my way or the highway” proposal, that it can be ONLY one way, that everyone else is stupid, incredible, unqualified,
those like Tim who are closed and inflexible, well they of course are exquisitely intelligent, exceedingly qualified, and eminently credible.
Oh yes indeed. They are MARVELOUS!!!
April 26th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Rob,
Your blogs remind me of how my parents used to fight. My mom would unleash her rath and walk out of the room only to re-enter moments later with another verbal onslaught. This, of course, happened repeatedly and it is kind of pathetic and painful to watch (or read). All I can say, man, is take a deep breath and chill. You have shared your opinion and that was nice of you but get off the stage. You are just one in an ocean of opinions. The developers and investors should do what they want with the block. Lexington needs to get real and move on. If they don’t do it, someone else will. Time marches on- nothing stays the same- and most of the time that is a very good thing.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
This is no stage, Jared. No one reads this crap. This is a private conversation practically.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
re-entering:
Once again, like Tim: Whatever the developer says is right. Everyone else is unqualified, irrelevant, incredible, and now . . .hysterical.
What matters to anyone, other than yourself, Jared, doesn’t matter.
What matters to you Jared?
Lexington needs to get real and move on? (Why does that mattrer to you?)
The proposal as designed is an absolute travesty. I’m talking specifically about the design of the base 4-story speculative office and retail. The street level renderings show exactly what this is, and it could not possibly be designed worse. It is ugly, cheap, impermanent, tasteless drivel that is going to be inflicted on us and to which real people object for real reasons. It’s a design well suited to some strip mall shopping center or some highway interchange motel, but not suited for the front door of our city.
The one thing you’re right about though is that this blog is a waste of my time.
I’m just about done with it. I just wanted Tim to know that I think his comments are worthless, so I’ve taken some extra time.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hayward,
Your stormtrooper has tried to drag this off point with his blitzkrieg. I make that connection because of his admitted support and connection to Preserve Lexington. Sounds like he can’t take the heat and is cracking up. But back to the question, your statement to Matt was misleading, wasn’t it?
April 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Misleading?
So you think a group of people with day jobs who get together to volunteer their time for a common interest (preservation), actually knew in advance anything that the Webbs were planning, but “lay in waiting” because they wanted to fight about the project AFTER it was made public?
Wow Tim! Here’s a simpler explanation:
The people of Preserve Lexington did not know the Webbs plans because those plans had been kept secret,
All of your statements and ideas about the timing and purpose and intent of the formation of Preserve Lexington come strictly from your own overworked imagination. They have no basis in reality. You know the date that the organization was formed, and nothing else.
You make premature erroneous conclusions, and you contribute nothing.
Again,
What kind of work do you do?
How old are you?
Do you believe it is possible to develop a great project on this site and to include re-use of some fo the existing buildings.
April 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Tom: I’ve enjoyed reading the posts on your blog(s) for the most part. However, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to consider adopting some basic standards of civility that posts must live up to, especially with regard to the manner in which posters address one another.
Many of the topics presented are inherently contentious, and a certain amount of verbal conflict is to be expected. However, allowing unlimited sniping to occur not only takes us off-topic, but discourages others from contributing, and that is a shame.
I would suggest that those whose contributions are either clearly designed to antagonize or otherwise disrupt or derail the conversation should be given a public warning from the blog-site administrator. Any continued problem and the offending poster should be banned for 30 days or more.
Computer-savvy flamers can figure out work-arounds, but the net effect is that it becomes progressively harder for offenders to post, the civility level raises, and more people are likely to post their questions, concerns, or opinions knowing that they won’t be ridiculed or harrassed for doing so.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Dennis,
You make some excellent points. I tried to make some of those points in a post April 7, when I urged people to stick to issues and avoid personal attacks. I also urged those who want to post provocative comments to have the courage to do so using their real names. Some have, and some haven’t. It’s time to make that request again, especially to stop the personal attacks and replies. Please, let’s stick to the issues and sharing useful information and opinions.
I’m still figuring out how to manager this new public forum. In some ways, I feel like a bouncer in a bar — I want everyone to have a good time, but I occasionally need to step in and warn people when they’re getting too rowdy. And, if they persist, I’ll have to throw them out.
So far, I have avoided approving or rejecting comments before they appear, because I don’t want to slow down the conversation. I also have avoided, with a couple of exceptions, deleting comments that have been posted. I don’t want to play censor. But I will if necessary.
Another note: When you leave a comment on this blog, I see your email address and your computer IP address.
I can’t require people to use their real or full names, but I won’t allow people to use different identities under the same email address. Pick an identity and stick to it.
Also, I’m seeing one example of a number of identities and email addresses coming from the same IP address. I’m no techno wiz, so I don’t know whether that means they’re coming from the same computer, or the same computer network, or what.
In the interest of full disclosure to readers, here are the identities I have seen coming from the same IP address: K-Rock, Jared, Right On, M, Obrian, Theresa, 123sassy, E. Weber, Warren R., Lucinda, Sun Yon Yi, Mike, Kristen, James W., Sturgill, Rick Past, Samantha and the first three comments made by Tim. Somebody who knows more about this than I do may be able to offer an explanation.
So, let’s continue the discussion, but stop the bickering.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Tom,
Are you saying all of those people are using one IP address or are you saying that there are several IP addresses that multiple people are using? Or are you saying all of these people are the same person? I can answer that question for myself immediately. I have not posted anything on this blog under any other name or identity. I am not Mike, or Theresa or K-Rock or any other moniker. I am simply “Tim” an unwitting crusader for progress who has apparently become prominent to some in this blog because I seek the truth.
I like the fact that you are finally doing some investigative reporting. However, I think you should expend some of that energy on gathering facts fairly and not slanting the issues since you can edit and control comments people leave here. An example of this would be to advise people in the article by Rob Snyder that he is not an architect but rather a computer software developer. Its obvious that you threw the degree in Architecture in there to give this guy some validity. It has been up to me to find out the truth, and as a result of finding out the truth, Rob is now seemingly obsessed, hoping beyond hope that I am 17 and naive so he can implement whatever machinations are churning in that mind of his. I can only imagine, based upon his posts, what could happen if I were to post my real name for Rob, since he now feels this is a “private” conversation.
While I agree with Dennis to some degree, I do believe in being able to zealously argue a point. I vehemently disagree with Rob Snyder’s insult to your blog where he states “No one reads this crap.” I can’t believe I am championing you, unsolicited as it is, but this characterization is completely erroneous and unfair to you and your blog. Thank you Tom for allowing people, even those like me who call you into question, to voice their concerns, feelings and thoughts on this issue. That is truly the American way.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Hayward,
You refuse to answer the question. Your statement to Matt about Preserve Lexington being created in the “weeks and months” before the unveiling of Centrepointe is not an accurrate statement is it?
April 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
You might be much older Tim, but your mentality seems to have been arrested.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It’s fair for me to question your intelligence, Tim.
Here’s why:
You have spent your time so far on this blog characterizing myself, Tom, Hayward and others as
liars,
unqualified
irrelevant
corrupt
hysterical
insane
You now procalim yourself a “crusader for progress who seeks the truth.” (paraphrased)
You ignore or don’t understand the simple substance of the discussion at hand and focus only and repeatedly on your poorly designed attempts to discredit everyone who disagrees with you.
It makes you look unintelligent.
You should either engage in a substantive discussion, or leave.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Tom,
Out of respect for your April 27th request, I am not going to respond to Rob Snyder’s posts. I don’t think he speaks for you or Hayward and I am trying to comply with your call to “stop the bickering” even though Rob has made this personal. I will however continue to voice my thoughts and concerns and questions that, although blunt, will (I endeavor) be in a different prose. Along those lines……..
Hayward…..how bout that “weeks and months” statement buddy? Stretching things there a bit, aren’t you?
(see the smiley face)
April 30th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
H.W.,
Hey pal. I haven’t heard from you on my question. Failing to respond could be construed as consent. If I don’t hear from you I guess that is the intended response. Thanks a million Heyward. Love you pal!
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
H.W. and Rob,
You lose.