Demolished: 509 & 517 Louisiana St.

[Nate99]

No, elections won't turn on it, but at the same time, coming out in favor of preservation isn't a bad way for a candidate to win the support of inner loop constituencies. This helped get Annise Parker move up the ranks into office, and the public was interested enough to drive the first serious preservation laws in Houston's history during her term, including solid protection for the whole Main Street/Market Square district (roughly everything from Milam to Fannin, north of Texas and south of the bayou). This cost some political capital as she admitted, but that was 5 years ago and the reserves are replenishing... now it is simply a matter of the planning department being able to give Protected Landmark designation to buildings outside of historic districts.

 

I gather that very few people find the particulars of city politics compelling beyond police, firemen and potholes. That seems to be the vast majority of what is presented consistently in local campaigns apart from the odd nebulous discussion around finances, and those never seem to drive any victories.  Local political action doesn't even make news anymore unless it involves racial or sexual issues.

 

Those that care and have time to raise funds broadly (or have a more direct incentive) will line up behind the scenes to fund people that will push their policy preferences where few will notice or care.  Campaigning on a platform of doing nothing makes it hard to win particularly motivated friends the way giving people what they want on someone else's dime does, be that a fat defense contract or the ability to admire particular masonry practices that were forced to be preserved between your luxury apartment that required TIRZ incentives to be built and the tax exempt symphony hall. Such is the shortcoming of democracy; I know of no better alternative. 

 

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out around Market Square.

[Sunstar]

I gather that very few people find the particulars of city politics compelling beyond police, firemen and potholes. That seems to be the vast majority of what is presented consistently in local campaigns apart from the odd nebulous discussion around finances, and those never seem to drive any victories.  Local political action doesn't even make news anymore unless it involves racial or sexual issues.

 

Those that care and have time to raise funds broadly (or have a more direct incentive) will line up behind the scenes to fund people that will push their policy preferences where few will notice or care.  Campaigning on a platform of doing nothing makes it hard to win particularly motivated friends the way giving people what they want on someone else's dime does, be that a fat defense contract or the ability to admire particular masonry practices that were forced to be preserved between your luxury apartment that required TIRZ incentives to be built and the tax exempt symphony hall. Such is the shortcoming of democracy; I know of no better alternative. 

 

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out around Market Square.

 

You're equating awarding lucrative defense contracts with historic preservation and supporting the arts? 

[H-Town Man]

I gather that very few people find the particulars of city politics compelling beyond police, firemen and potholes. That seems to be the vast majority of what is presented consistently in local campaigns apart from the odd nebulous discussion around finances, and those never seem to drive any victories.  Local political action doesn't even make news anymore unless it involves racial or sexual issues.

 

Those that care and have time to raise funds broadly (or have a more direct incentive) will line up behind the scenes to fund people that will push their policy preferences where few will notice or care.  Campaigning on a platform of doing nothing makes it hard to win particularly motivated friends the way giving people what they want on someone else's dime does, be that a fat defense contract or the ability to admire particular masonry practices that were forced to be preserved between your luxury apartment that required TIRZ incentives to be built and the tax exempt symphony hall. Such is the shortcoming of democracy; I know of no better alternative. 

 

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out around Market Square.

 

So democracy is at the mercy of small, motivated special interest groups, and historic preservationists are one such group. But aren't the developers and property rights advocates like Barry Klein another such small group? One that has wielded tremendous local power for decades?

[Nate99]

So democracy is at the mercy of small, motivated special interest groups, and historic preservationists are one such group. But aren't the developers and property rights advocates like Barry Klein another such small group? One that has wielded tremendous local power for decades?

 

Democracy is not at the mercy of it, democracy enables it. Property values, business plans and tax collections are most certainly at the mercy of small motivated groups with a wide variety of motivations. I'll tend to vote more consistently with the ones that wish to restrict others' actions less.

[Nate99]

You're equating awarding lucrative defense contracts with historic preservation and supporting the arts? 

 

In as much as a few interested parties get what they want (profits or cheaper Blue Man Group tickets, in these examples) by navigating the obscure margins of politics rather than exchanging something of their own value, yes.

 

Historic preservation and arts that require government coercion to be viable seem as proportionally wasteful to me as the old $500 hammer of Defense Department lore.  Patrons of the arts, preservationists, and the recipient of the hammer contract are sure to disagree.

[Sunstar]

In as much as a few interested parties get what they want (profits or cheaper Blue Man Group tickets, in these examples) by navigating the obscure margins of politics rather than exchanging something of their own value, yes.

 

Historic preservation and arts that require government coercion to be viable seem as proportionally wasteful to me as the old $500 hammer of Defense Department lore.  Patrons of the arts, preservationists, and the recipient of the hammer contract are sure to disagree.

 

The thought of using coercion to fund the arts gave me a slight chuckle. Give us funding or we'll make you watch "Starlight Express."

 

Government interference aside, this wouldn't be so frustrating if Houston didn't have such a long history of, well...destroying its history. Particularly in the interest of the banal. There's a reason Houston has such a hard time luring companies that aren't associated with Oil and Gas, or attracting the coveted creative class. We're seen as a characterless wasteland of freeways and strip malls. In recent years there has been a big push to improve the quality of life in Houston, but stuff like this feels like a step backwards.

 

While your philosophy of limiting government involvement in these areas and leaving it to the discretion of the land owners has merit, I don't want to live in the ultimate product it produces.  It's similar to the gun control issue. Many firmly oppose the regulation of firearms because it supposedly infringes on our constitutional rights. So in the interest of preserving our supposed freedoms, we live in a country where gun violence is rampant. Mission accomplished?

[Nate99]

The thought of using coercion to fund the arts gave me a slight chuckle. Give us funding or we'll make you watch "Starlight Express."

 

Government interference aside, this wouldn't be so frustrating if Houston didn't have such a long history of, well...destroying its history. Particularly in the interest of the banal. There's a reason Houston has such a hard time luring companies that aren't associated with Oil and Gas, or attracting the coveted creative class. We're seen as a characterless wasteland of freeways and strip malls. In recent years there has been a big push to improve the quality of life in Houston, but stuff like this feels like a step backwards.

 

While your philosophy of limiting government involvement in these areas and leaving it to the discretion of the land owners has merit, I don't want to live in the ultimate product it produces.  It's similar to the gun control issue. Many firmly oppose the regulation of firearms because it supposedly infringes on our constitutional rights. So in the interest of preserving our supposed freedoms, we live in a country where gun violence is rampant. Mission accomplished?

 

 

Hello Dolly, A Clockwork Orange style.

 

 

As I explained earlier, I'm all for different places trying different things and seeing what works and it's not up to me, I just have my preferences.  The tough part is quantifying what you gave up to get there, but there are new Bentleys and there are used Kias, I see Houston as a nice certified pre-owned Chevy. 

 

The current oil price bust should be a good indicator of our local economic diversification needs. There are a spectrum of "the ultimate products" out there, but presumably you do live in the one that doesn't codify (much) the preservation of old buildings for one reason or another over one that does.  Part of he reason it is, on net, in your interest to remain here could be the lack of restrictions that that lead to the "wasteland" perception.  If you live elsewhere, I'll applaud you for living by your principles and voting with your feet. Judging by the population growth around here, it's not that much of a consideration to many folks.

 

These two buildings had all of the character, history and charm that are supposed to be so valuable, but they sat empty as did many others like them until any other use could be justified. They might have been neat to look at, but they certainly weren't good to use as buildings.  How much longer would you have wanted an empty Texas Tower, derelict Montagu hotel, urine soaked and abandoned Ben Milam hotel, or empty West building to remain when other developments that are driving the revitalization of downtown were ready to go in their place?

 

Everything has a tradeoff, New Orleans proudly preserves its history, but due to a myriad of issues, it repels companies from every industry including oil and gas, unless they are just visiting for the party.  I don't think the answer to broad based success lies among those who particularly value old buildings, but I could be wrong.  Arranging aesthetics a particular way to attract talented people seems risky, but it plausibly could be net positive, I just don't personally think it would.

 

I'm not getting into 2nd amendment issues here.

[monarch]

^^^ perfectly articulated and expressed nate99.  well done!

[Sunstar]

Hello Dolly, A Clockwork Orange style.

 

 

As I explained earlier, I'm all for different places trying different things and seeing what works and it's not up to me, I just have my preferences.  The tough part is quantifying what you gave up to get there, but there are new Bentleys and there are used Kias, I see Houston as a nice certified pre-owned Chevy. 

 

The current oil price bust should be a good indicator of our local economic diversification needs. There are a spectrum of "the ultimate products" out there, but presumably you do live in the one that doesn't codify (much) the preservation of old buildings for one reason or another over one that does.  Part of he reason it is, on net, in your interest to remain here could be the lack of restrictions that that lead to the "wasteland" perception.  If you live elsewhere, I'll applaud you for living by your principles and voting with your feet. Judging by the population growth around here, it's not that much of a consideration to many folks.

 

These two buildings had all of the character, history and charm that are supposed to be so valuable, but they sat empty as did many others like them until any other use could be justified. They might have been neat to look at, but they certainly weren't good to use as buildings.  How much longer would you have wanted an empty Texas Tower, derelict Montagu hotel, urine soaked and abandoned Ben Milam hotel, or empty West building to remain when other developments that are driving the revitalization of downtown were ready to go in their place?

 

Everything has a tradeoff, New Orleans proudly preserves its history, but due to a myriad of issues, it repels companies from every industry including oil and gas, unless they are just visiting for the party.  I don't think the answer to broad based success lies among those who particularly value old buildings, but I could be wrong.  Arranging aesthetics a particular way to attract talented people seems risky, but it plausibly could be net positive, I just don't personally think it would.

 

I'm not getting into 2nd amendment issues here.

 

That's the face I make when I watch pretty much any musical. Those NEA folks can be persuasive.

 

In regards to letting empty buildings hold up other developments, what's so frustrating with this demolition is there is no other development. It's just a parking lot. That doesn't drive revitalization, quite the opposite. I know the Lancaster intends to expand on the site, but that could be years from now. And it's not unlikely that the economic downturn we're in the midst of makes that plan unfeasible.  If they manage to make good on this intention, I'll give them some credit. But otherwise we've been bequeathed a parking lot.

 

I moved to Houston in my 20s for work and found it to be a very unsettling place. It seemed to have no center, nothing to anchor it. My plan was to work a few years, gain some experience, and then move on. It was around this time that the downtown revitalization started and this forum was founded, which kept me abreast of all the exciting new projects, many of them involving restoration of a historic building. The city started to get a "vibe", for lack of a better word, that one would associate with more heralded cities. Houston will never be a New York or Chicago, but it can succeed on its own terms. Of course there are trade offs, but one would think that trying to defend historic preservation on an architecture site would be unnecessary. And yet here we are. 

 

Perhaps the argument here is these particular buildings weren't special enough to save, which could be a worthwhile argument. My next question would be where do you draw the line? Or is everything expendable in the name of broad based success? 

 

The 2nd amendment discussion is definitely a slippery slope. Perhaps someone could find a less explosive analogy that pits dogmatic adherence to political/economic doctrines seemingly against the greater good. Of course claiming to know what stands for the greater good is an insidious comment at best, but for me I would include preserving the history of our city for future generations. Others may find that misguided, but again to my point about this being an architecture forum. 

[Nate99]

Of course there are trade offs, but one would think that trying to defend historic preservation on an architecture site would be unnecessary. And yet here we are. 

 

Perhaps the argument here is these particular buildings weren't special enough to save, which could be a worthwhile argument. My next question would be where do you draw the line? Or is everything expendable in the name of broad based success?  

 

I'm among the odd men out in a forum like this, to be sure. I do think pretty much anything privately owned should be expendable.

 

Publicly owned stuff only exists due to the political process, so that's inherently dependent upon the public deciding its fate through political shenanigans.

[KinkaidAlum]

New Orleans does care about preservation because tourism is about all that is left. Business doesn't avoid New Orleans because it protects old architecture. It avoids it because it is in Louisiana; a place full of corruption, violence, and an uneducated populace. Also, it might not exist in the near future.

 

There are dozens of cities with strict building guidelines, strong historic preservation codes, and even design review boards that are thriving. 

 

Everything is a system of checks and balances. Houston works better when some freedoms are curtailed. That's why the healthiest neighborhoods inside the city limits have the strictest deed restrictions. That's no accident.

[Nate99]

New Orleans does care about preservation because tourism is about all that is left. Business doesn't avoid New Orleans because it protects old architecture. It avoids it because it is in Louisiana; a place full of corruption, violence, and an uneducated populace. Also, it might not exist in the near future.

 

There are dozens of cities with strict building guidelines, strong historic preservation codes, and even design review boards that are thriving. 

 

Everything is a system of checks and balances. Houston works better when some freedoms are curtailed. That's why the healthiest neighborhoods inside the city limits have the strictest deed restrictions. That's no accident.

 

 

My New Orleans point was more narrowly addressing the "creative class attraction" angle. They do that almost as well as any city in America and have historic preservation as a priority, but as I mentioned and you point out, they have a myriad of issues that the creative class' contribution can not overcome. 

 

The deed restrictions are in place when a property is built or bought, if you know that going in, I have no problem with that, you manage your investment with that in mind. One can work to get them changed if he thinks his plan to do so has some merit.   There are all manner of restrictions on everything, I don't confuse personal property rights with personal sovereignty, I just think they should have every right to knock these buildings down if they want to because it allows them and others in the same position the flexibility to maximize the value and create economic growth. I understand that a historic building is a tangible definite good to some people that should not be traded for speculative future growth. All else being equal, I like them too, but think the option to do with them as you wish without having to deal with a preservation board is more important. 

 

We can't know how any city would end up with more or less restrictions than they have as every situation has many interdependent issues affecting each other; one could go on for days with examples of how this or that restriction helped or hurt any particular place. That said, my bias will continue to be toward not restricting people that are not harming others and I don't think that tearing down an old building harms anyone.

[cspwal]

In an unpopular defense of demolishing these buildings, they are very out of scale of the rest of the block - the Alley Theatre is huge, the Lancaster and the garages are tall, and the building behind it is very much a skyscaper

 

That being said - a parking lot here will be like a missing tooth in a mouth - it will stand out and make the whole block look worse for it.  I hope that the Lancaster gets the money together to expand soon, or has to sell the block to a developer soon.  

[Sunstar]

The Creative Class approach is espoused more by cities like Portland, San Francisco and Austin. I wouldn't say New Orleans' focus on historic preservation is specifically designed to attract the creative class, although it does seem to have that effect. 

 

There is a big quality of life push in many cities in the US right now, including Houston, that I think is largely intent on this. I would agree that the theory is a bit dubious, but it certainly has it's proponents. If you could find a way to promote this without having to put a lot of restrictions in place, that would be a win-win. 

[H-Town Man]

New Orleans does care about preservation because tourism is about all that is left. Business doesn't avoid New Orleans because it protects old architecture. It avoids it because it is in Louisiana; a place full of corruption, violence, and an uneducated populace. Also, it might not exist in the near future.

There are dozens of cities with strict building guidelines, strong historic preservation codes, and even design review boards that are thriving.

Everything is a system of checks and balances. Houston works better when some freedoms are curtailed. That's why the healthiest neighborhoods inside the city limits have the strictest deed restrictions. That's no accident.

Wait a second, Kinkaid. Are you sure business doesn't avoid New Orleans just because it preserves old architecture?

The fact is, government should never cater to any interest that involves less than 100% citizen support. The real wrong turn was the space program, imho. The national parks are another thing that just gets under my skin. Both have a clear connection to our current economic stagnation...

[H-Town Man]

These two buildings had all of the character, history and charm that are supposed to be so valuable, but they sat empty as did many others like them until any other use could be justified. They might have been neat to look at, but they certainly weren't good to use as buildings. How much longer would you have wanted an empty Texas Tower, derelict Montagu hotel, urine soaked and abandoned Ben Milam hotel, or empty West building to remain when other developments that are driving the revitalization of downtown were ready to go in their place?

I get tired of arguing with you, but need to call you out on bs. They did not "sit empty." Read one of the articles that have been posted on here. 509 housed the Longhorn Cafe for 30 years until 2011 iirc, and 517 had an upscale restaurant for about 25 years until 2003. After that it became hotel storage, probably the owner's choice to stop marketing it. If they could support retail tenants through the 80's and 90's, they surely could in a few years when the downtown population doubles.

[sevfiv]

"The hotel expansion has long been considered, he said, but the recent parking issue accelerated the decision to move forward."

 

The Lancaster is responsible for the deferred maintenance, and probably on purpose since they have been eyeing the buildings' footprints for parking for a while. It doesn't even seem sustainable - "parking for 50 cars?" That may help immediately, but they're going to have to find more anyway for a so-called expansion..

[Nole23]

I think their expansion plans include multilevel parking, a ballroom, and almost doubling the amount of rooms. It seems like a lot for the amount of space that will be there, but then again I'm no expert and not sure how big the tract left behind will be. But I agree that I'm sure they have been planning to tear these down for a long time which is why they are currently vacant and have not leased them back out once the previous tenants left. The deferred maintenance, while I'm sure there is some, seems more of an excuse to tear them down because they knew there would be backlash from the public and HAIFers .

 

While I'm still pretty upset these buildings were torn down, they won't be coming back. I just hope if they indeed plan to expand the hotel, hopefully it is sooner rather than later and AT LEAST make the expansion look "historic" and similar to the hotel....

 

Thankfully we have many historic buildings in downtown that have been renovated or are currently being turned into apartments and hotels.

[Sunstar]

Interesting story in Swamp lot regarding the site: http://swamplot.com/a-quick-houston-ghost-story-before-509-louisiana-st-gives-up-the-ghost/2016-01-13/

[Nate99]

I get tired of arguing with you, but need to call you out on bs. They did not "sit empty." Read one of the articles that have been posted on here. 509 housed the Longhorn Cafe for 30 years until 2011 iirc, and 517 had an upscale restaurant for about 25 years until 2003. After that it became hotel storage, probably the owner's choice to stop marketing it. If they could support retail tenants through the 80's and 90's, they surely could in a few years when the downtown population doubles.

 

They marketed 509 to BB's who moved in after Longhorn failed. When BB's left, they weren't replaced, I'm not sure how long 509 sat without a use other than storage, but neither were being utilized for the last 3-4 years. That's close enough to "sit empty" for me to feel ok about that characterization, but I guess you have a different time period in mind (something in excess of a CBD property being used as storage for 12 years) before a lack of usefulness can be proven out. You can think of it as "bs" or however you like, and your "call out" will probably reinforce your opinion of my point of view and those that agree with you.  Suffice it to say, I don't find it persuasive, nor your claim of being tired of arguing your position against mine. We value things differently, and we're both rather proud of our reasoning behind that. That's not going to change here.  

 

If they chose to stop marketing them for lease, which should be easily enough to tell for someone in the business, why delay the teardown until now?  I'm guessing they were weighing options perhaps waiting a bit for a market to come around, but they decided to go for a parking lot now.  Could be a bad call, it's theirs to make.  

[samagon]

My New Orleans point was more narrowly addressing the "creative class attraction" angle. They do that almost as well as any city in America and have historic preservation as a priority, but as I mentioned and you point out, they have a myriad of issues that the creative class' contribution can not overcome. 

 

The deed restrictions are in place when a property is built or bought, if you know that going in, I have no problem with that, you manage your investment with that in mind. One can work to get them changed if he thinks his plan to do so has some merit.   There are all manner of restrictions on everything, I don't confuse personal property rights with personal sovereignty, I just think they should have every right to knock these buildings down if they want to because it allows them and others in the same position the flexibility to maximize the value and create economic growth. I understand that a historic building is a tangible definite good to some people that should not be traded for speculative future growth. All else being equal, I like them too, but think the option to do with them as you wish without having to deal with a preservation board is more important. 

 

We can't know how any city would end up with more or less restrictions than they have as every situation has many interdependent issues affecting each other; one could go on for days with examples of how this or that restriction helped or hurt any particular place. That said, my bias will continue to be toward not restricting people that are not harming others and I don't think that tearing down an old building harms anyone.

 

Agree, and at this point, what we can hope for is that other entities around the city look to the lancaster and say "wow, they destroyed historic buildings for a parking lot, after they did that, their profits went down, we can presume it was because people actually appreciate this preservation thing, so we will preserve the buildings we have!"

 

that's how this should work. reality is though, there are probably enough people who don't care about preservation enough to not be bothered by what these people did with the buildings they owned, as a matter of fact, their valet service is 15 seconds faster than it was last time they stayed, so they'll rate it higher.

[H-Town Man]

They marketed 509 to BB's who moved in after Longhorn failed. When BB's left, they weren't replaced, I'm not sure how long 509 sat without a use other than storage, but neither were being utilized for the last 3-4 years. That's close enough to "sit empty" for me to feel ok about that characterization, but I guess you have a different time period in mind (something in excess of a CBD property being used as storage for 12 years) before a lack of usefulness can be proven out. You can think of it as "bs" or however you like, and your "call out" will probably reinforce your opinion of my point of view and those that agree with you.  Suffice it to say, I don't find it persuasive, nor your claim of being tired of arguing your position against mine. We value things differently, and we're both rather proud of our reasoning behind that. That's not going to change here.  

 

If they chose to stop marketing them for lease, which should be easily enough to tell for someone in the business, why delay the teardown until now?  I'm guessing they were weighing options perhaps waiting a bit for a market to come around, but they decided to go for a parking lot now.  Could be a bad call, it's theirs to make.  

 

So they were leased through the 80's, 90's, and 00's, but they sat vacant 3-4 years as the owner prepared to demolish them. And on that you base your assertion that they were unviable buildings. Also, Costar shows an office lease for 509 signed in Oct. 2011, so it doesn't even look like it sat vacant for 3-4 years. 

 

It is interesting to know that you're so proud of your reasoning. I really just cared about the buildings.

[Nate99]

So they were leased through the 80's, 90's, and 00's, but they sat vacant 3-4 years as the owner prepared to demolish them. And on that you base your assertion that they were unviable buildings. Also, Costar shows an office lease for 509 signed in Oct. 2011, so it doesn't even look like it sat vacant for 3-4 years. 

 

It is interesting to know that you're so proud of your reasoning. I really just cared about the buildings.

 

That's why you "called me out" for "bs", your care for the buildings and weariness over arguing with me?  I don't doubt that you care about them, but I like challenging the basis of what I believe through discussions like this, it seemed like you were doing the same.  Perhaps we can agree that we've said our respective pieces for internet posterity to judge and leave it at that.

[H-Town Man]

That's why you "called me out" for "bs", your care for the buildings and weariness over arguing with me?  I don't doubt that you care about them, but I like challenging the basis of what I believe through discussions like this, it seemed like you were doing the same.  Perhaps we can agree that we've said our respective pieces for internet posterity to judge and leave it at that.

 

No, I really was weary of the argument which is why I ignored your posts for two weeks, but saying that they had "stood empty" and hence deserved to go when that was not the case drew me back in. The dust was clearing from their demolition, you could have eased up on the provocative remarks.

[samagon]

That's why you "called me out" for "bs", your care for the buildings and weariness over arguing with me?  I don't doubt that you care about them, but I like challenging the basis of what I believe through discussions like this, it seemed like you were doing the same.  Perhaps we can agree that we've said our respective pieces for internet posterity to judge and leave it at that.

 

you spelled posterior incorrectly. 

[Nate99]

No, I really was weary of the argument which is why I ignored your posts for two weeks, but saying that they had "stood empty" and hence deserved to go when that was not the case drew me back in. The dust was clearing from their demolition, you could have eased up on the provocative remarks.

 

I didn't post for two weeks either, there was nothing for you to ignore.  If lacking a tenant for multiple years isn't close enough to "standing empty" for you to refrain from calling bs, I'll concede that my argument is not going to meet your standards. I also have a poor handle on why that would be provocative when it sounds like a simple fact to me.

 

you spelled posterior incorrectly. 

 

You ain't kidding.

[H-Town Man]

I didn't post for two weeks either, there was nothing for you to ignore.  If lacking a tenant for multiple years isn't close enough to "standing empty" for you to refrain from calling bs, I'll concede that my argument is not going to meet your standards. I also have a poor handle on why that would be provocative when it sounds like a simple fact to me.

 

 

You ain't kidding.

 

Yes Nate, the "standing empty" argument is bs. I think you need to have the last word, so I'll go ahead and give it to you. But if you don't like arguing, don't go around rubbing salt into the wounds of preservationists when the piles of rubble are fresh.

[H-Town Man]

 

These two buildings had all of the character, history and charm that are supposed to be so valuable, but they sat empty as did many others like them until any other use could be justified. They might have been neat to look at, but they certainly weren't good to use as buildings.  How much longer would you have wanted an empty Texas Tower, derelict Montagu hotel, urine soaked and abandoned Ben Milam hotel, or empty West building to remain when other developments that are driving the revitalization of downtown were ready to go in their place?

 

 

And I'll just reiterate - if you don't know why this would be provocative, in light of the fact that the buildings had just been torn down, then I think that's bs and have no respect for you. You know very well that this was provocative, and any arguments that it wasn't are more bs from your lips.

 

You can finish.

[Nate99]

Yes Nate, the "standing empty" argument is bs. I think you need to have the last word, so I'll go ahead and give it to you. But if you don't like arguing, don't go around rubbing salt into the wounds of preservationists when the piles of rubble are fresh.

 

 

And I'll just reiterate - if you don't know why this would be provocative, in light of the fact that the buildings had just been torn down, then I think that's bs and have no respect for you. You know very well that this was provocative, and any arguments that it wasn't are more bs from your lips.

 

You can finish.

 

You have a PM

[BigFootsSocks]

Yes Nate, the "standing empty" argument is bs. I think you need to have the last word, so I'll go ahead and give it to you. But if you don't like arguing, don't go around rubbing salt into the wounds of preservationists when the piles of rubble are fresh.

"You need to have the last word"

-he says, hoping to have the last word.