Comment 64586

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted June 04, 2011 at 21:22:47 in reply to Comment 64585

Rebuttal to what exactly? If you want a serious reply, you might want to a) start out with a little less sarcasm and b) do a smidgen of research before making accusations and assumptions.

When the Artist's Inc bought it, the initial inspection showed that there was some structural work that needed to be done in the second and third buildings from the corner (they bought 4 buildings in total).

After interior renovations and removal began, they uncovered the fact that a previous owner had removed the entire shared structural wall between the 2nd and 3rd buildings and added no support. The architects deemed it unfit for occupation.

THe corner building and the fourth building in still stand, and if you have been there lately you'll notice that the corner building is being renovated (including a new facade) an infill building is being built to link the two. Unfortunately city restrictions mean that the infill building can have very little glass and limited height etc.

Not sure what you are getting at with your previous comments, but perhaps it might be worthwhile to compare this renovation with, say, rokbar - where they requested a demolition permit, got denied, and then had a big whoopsie where they removed a structural wall by accident, causing partial collapse which then allowed them to get approval for full demolition in order to build the beautiful piece of architecture that stands there now

But I suppose in your view, we should blame all of the musicians in the city for that one...



Comment edited by seancb on 2011-06-04 21:25:29

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools