Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ryanov t1_ix2jmrt wrote

Seems to me like there are enough giant parking lots in this city to avoid tearing down historic buildings to put things up.

6

Newarkguy1836 t1_ix40v5n wrote

Goetsman (EDISON PARKFAST) owns all vacant property in Downtown. Even if the parking lots don't say "EDISON".....EDISON OWNS THEM thru other "owners"...actually part of EDISON PROPERTIES LLC or whatever holding company.

He charges robbery prices to sell his land, developers won't deal with EDISON.

Apparently they are GOOD DONORS TO EVERYONE IN CITY HALL.

City hall won't punish them on their defiant demolitions or do anything to compell EDISON to develop their properties.

6

Kalebxtentacion t1_ix2xd1s wrote

Yeah an historic building that is next to a school and can fall down at any moment. I rather be happy knowing that someone is doing something to prevent kids from getting hurt

4

twinkcommunist t1_ix4yiby wrote

Behold, a historic building. I oppose demolishing ornamented victorians or anything with cool masonry because we'll never be able to build like that again, but this is incredibly generic and quite ugly.

3

ryanov t1_ix4yo37 wrote

That does not look like in 1899 townhouse to me.

3

twinkcommunist t1_ix4z8bs wrote

It's the building in the majority of the footprint of the tower, but here is the other side. The second one looks kind of nice and I wouldn't mind if they left the front up, but it's really nothing incredible, and the first and third definitely suck. I don't know if all three townhouses are on the chopping block through.

Edit: only the first of the three townhouses will be demolished. I think it's ok looking, not actively ugly but not worth preventing hundreds of homes to preserve.

3

ryanov t1_ix521fq wrote

If you don’t understand how saying “this is a historic building,” and then showing a different building that doesn’t fit the description of the one mentioned to be at issue isn’t a dishonest argument, I don’t know what to tell you.

“There is a historic building we think should be saved. — “The largest part of the footprint isn’t historic.” — “OK…?”

0

twinkcommunist t1_ix53nfg wrote

It's not dishonesty, it's ignorance that I corrected immediately upon finding the right information.

The reddit post is just a render of the completed project, not the article about the commission. No one mentioned the 1899 townhouse in any of the comments I responded to, so excuse me for thinking the (also old) building on the corner would be the one demolished for a tower which is on that corner.

3

ryanov t1_ix54bcw wrote

I personally told you that well before you made that comment. So fair enough to owning up to a mistake, but in general, if something doesn’t make sense, it’s good to know that you have the right story.

1