Jump to content

Houston Press At 1621 Milam St.


ToolMan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 10 months later...
  • 12 years later...
15 hours ago, Avossos said:

 

This really hurts. I feel angry and frustrated. This building can’t be replaced

Sure it can. With another building that meets the owner's requirements. Or, a vacant lot with lower costs and reduced liabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

So glad people are not quoting Ross. Ignore is a great feature. He's been yelling about people holding opinions on an architectural forum for years. Troll.

I don't think I've ever yelled, I merely point out that unless you own the building in question, you have no real interest in what happens to it. For anyone to be devastated that 1621 Milam might be torn down is irrational behavior. It's an old building on a lot worth $15 million. Anyone who thinks it's not going to be torn down or changed significantly is not living in reality. 

 

And, KinkaidAlum, I am no more a troll than you are. I can be blunt, but that's not trolling. You have an opinion, i have an opinion. Mine is more valid than yours, since it's based in reality and not dreams(I guess that's an opinion as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

So glad people are not quoting Ross. Ignore is a great feature. He's been yelling about people holding opinions on an architectural forum for years. Troll.

 

I don't have you on ignore, as I should, because it's kind of childish, especially when you bring it up. You are very sensitive about certain things, and it shows in your reactive posts. Lighten up, Francis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross you have to admit That comments such as the building can be replaced with empty lot adds little (more like nothing) to an Architecture forum. The "it's up to the owner" argument is also rather lacking.

 

It's not like we are in court trying to decide what to do with the lot and you bring up it's up to the owner. We know that. But I'm discussing architecture in an Architecture site saying it is up to the owner adds nothing. Please don't use it anymore. It adds nothing that we don't already know.

 

Avossos stated that he likes this building and ti him it can't be replaced. I like the building also and would be sad to see it torn down. My opinion had no bearing on whether it goes out stays, but it does add to the discussion of styles of architecture that people like. At least you could say that you absolutely detest the building. That would further the discussion more than simply stating it's not our land. 

 

Architecture students are often given projects where they are assigned plots in various cities and asked to come up with a design. Would your best argument to the professor be that since it is not your land you cannot comment on what would look nice there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well put HoustonIsHome. Ross in case you forgot this forum cherishes its cities history. To you it's just a plot of land none of us own. And to many of us it's a part of why we love this city so much. So if things are just that black and white to you then why the hell are you in a forum like this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:25 PM, Ross said:

I don't think I've ever yelled, I merely point out that unless you own the building in question, you have no real interest in what happens to it. For anyone to be devastated that 1621 Milam might be torn down is irrational behavior. It's an old building on a lot worth $15 million. Anyone who thinks it's not going to be torn down or changed significantly is not living in reality. 

 

And, KinkaidAlum, I am no more a troll than you are. I can be blunt, but that's not trolling. You have an opinion, i have an opinion. Mine is more valid than yours, since it's based in reality and not dreams(I guess that's an opinion as well).

 

Interesting that some view disagreement as an attack. Pointing out the trade offs of preservationists is not yelling. The impulse to enlist government regulations to have the world underwrite your aesthetic preferences, or directing specific insults at property owners that choose not to do so at their own private expense seems misguided to some of us and we occasionally point it out.  If expressing such opinions has no place in an architecture forum, whoever controls this place is free to ban users. It should go without saying that people are free to disagree with opinions, but to do so on the internet always seems to run straight to insults and moralizing, which is a shame.   Despite the apparent initial intentions for the site, there's very little architecture discussion here and a lot around general development.  That's why those of us that were exposed to more economics professors than architecture professors have showed up over the years. 

 

In between these types of threads, there is a good discussion of how things are changing here and some of us that don't value old buildings all that much still find that content very interesting. Old structures are not the entirety of history, and they impose real incremental costs on the people that must use or maintain them if they are not allowed to pursue other alternatives as they wish. Sometimes it ends up being ugly, other times it ends up allowing another thousand people to support their families. 

 

Or, to put it another way...

 

This city cherishes fewer restrictions on the use of private property. It's part of why this city has grown at such a furious pace. If preservation of old buildings is that important to them then why are they in a city like this? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, can we at least agree that "if you don't like it, leave" is an unacceptable statement? Everybody has multiple priorities, multiple things they care about. It is possible to love a place while also recognizing its flaws. It's possible to love a place while also wanting to improve it. Criticizing people for having an opinion that's different from yours makes people defensive, and it makes it much harder to have a productive conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nate99 said:

 

This city cherishes fewer restrictions on the use of private property. It's part of why this city has grown at such a furious pace. If preservation of old buildings is that important to them then why are they in a city like this? 

 

 

Because it's home for some of us. It's where we're from. That's probably not a concept covered in economics class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...