Milwaukee amtrak station is hideous!
Khalid Rahim
ugly modern bldg with a dingy and depressing interior.
a sad hertz clerk was in there reading the paper. why would hertz even
staff an office in such a low-business location?
Ryan
news:34884d96.03061...@posting.google.com...
I took a trip there from Chicago with my sister a few weeks ago for the hell
of it. It was like stepping into a time warp. The only new things were the
people and the vending machines. The rest looked like all those airport
movies from the 60's and 70's. I think the chairs were original. The
restaurant listed on the Amtrak site looked like it closed sometime in the
early 80's maybe. They even had an ancient shoe shining machine. Quite a
massive piece of equipment for just shining shoes! I think everyone else
thought the place was bizzarro too because when they started boarding the
train back to Chicago everyone jumped out of their seats and hightailed it
to the train!
We were wondering why there was a Hertz rental place there too. Must be the
easiest job in the world. They must rent out two or three cars a month. ;)
Dave Rasmussen
They have some federal money to remodel it. The Wisconsin State DOT owns
the building now as well. It has a cool modern bridge next to it on 6th
street, our version of the St Louis Arch? ;-)
The previous Milwaukee Road Station was of interesting architecture, but
they demolished it for the freeway. The C&NW station on the lakefront was
also quite a landmark. They turned it into a parking lot.
LHW
when going from Chicago to Milwaukee. The ramps leading down to the
platforms look like they've not been swept or cleaned in years.
Actually, the restaurant closed within the last couple of years. If you
wanted to see a time warp, you should have seen THAT place!
L
"Ryan" <rsb...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bc7kg7$geuap$1...@ID-157012.news.dfncis.de...
John Obert
Michael G. Koerner
>
> the goverment and progress you have to love it
> >
> > They have some federal money to remodel it. The Wisconsin State DOT owns
> > the building now as well.
Don't forget the Post Office sorting center above and behind it!
:-p
> > It has a cool modern bridge next to it on 6th
> > street, our version of the St Louis Arch? ;-)
That is an interesting structure. The second 'cable-stayed' public
bridge in the state (the first is the footbridge over the US 41/45
freeway in suburban Menomonee Falls).
It is pretty interesting watching CP freight trains crawling through the
station, too. Is the crew-change still there?
> > The previous Milwaukee Road Station was of interesting architecture, but
> > they demolished it for the freeway. The C&NW station on the lakefront was
> > also quite a landmark. They turned it into a parking lot.
ISTR that it was acquired for the ROW of a never-built freeway (the
north-south lakefront part of the Park East).
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Mark Mathu
> That is an interesting structure. The second 'cable-stayed' public
> bridge in the state (the first is the footbridge over the US 41/45
> freeway in suburban Menomonee Falls).
No, the cable-stayed bridge at the Milwaukee Art Museum pre-dated the opening
of Sixth Street.
Michael G. Koerner
But its NOT a public ROW, rather it is part of the museum.
Khalid Rahim
failed esthetic of the 1960s. the vote among people living today is
pretty overwhelming: the neoclassical bldgs that were ripped down to
make way for 1960s monstrosities were tragic losses.
tobias b koehler
Khalid Rahim schrieb:
> walked by it. built in 1965 by the Milwaukee Rd. a charmless, totally
> ugly modern bldg with a dingy and depressing interior.
Do you have any photos?
--
tobias benjamin köhler ____________________________ t...@uncia.de
_________ ______________ ______________ ______________ __>_____
========H|H============H|H============H|H============H|=H=====`)
------oo-^-oo--------oo-^-oo--------oo-^-oo--------oo-^o-o--o-o=
Philip Nasadowski
tarkania...@spamgourmet.com (Khalid Rahim) wrote:
> some defend that building here, but to me it is confirmation of the
> failed esthetic of the 1960s.
Not really. It's not THE nicest building, but it looks fine, just run
down like every other rail station in the US, it seems. The interior
could have used more imagination, to be sure, but the exterior's fine.
The nicest 'depot' of any type I've seen that was built this side of
WWII is still the TWA terminal at JFK, which the Port Authority and
preservation groups are arguing over. It's closed now, but I remember
when it was open, and it was beautiful inside and out, but in need of
restoration :(
Cincinatti's ex-train station is all art deco and supposedly beautiful.
outside of GCT and New Haven and a few other noteables, I generally
despise the 'train station' look railbuffs seem to drool over. maybe
some have an attachment to the design because it's a reminder of the
'golden age', but I never lived through or knew such a time, and to me,a
train doesn't evoke images of long distance travel, but getting a->b
quickly and comfortably.
What's weird is the LIRR's knocking down a few 50's vintage station
houses to build what people apparently think a train station should look
like. Sea Cliff Ave, on the other hand is from the 80's (1880's :) and
looks GREAT after it's recent restoration.
But as far as building nice looking stations? There's so many in the
US, I'm sure we can fit everyone's arcetechtual (and spelling!) tastes
in, and anyway, as long as the station is clean, functional, and safe,
Amtrak's got a lot more to worry about these days....
--
To email me, chage 'usermale' to 'usermail'.
bras...@despammed.com
<nasadowsk-541FE...@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net>, Philip
Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> In article <34884d96.03061...@posting.google.com>,
> tarkania...@spamgourmet.com (Khalid Rahim) wrote:
>
> > some defend that building here, but to me it is confirmation of the
> > failed esthetic of the 1960s.
>
> But as far as building nice looking stations? There's so many in the
> US, I'm sure we can fit everyone's arcetechtual (and spelling!) tastes
> in, and anyway, as long as the station is clean, functional, and safe,
> Amtrak's got a lot more to worry about these days....
I agree that some stuff built in the 1960's is pretty awful (some
downright non-functional in meeting the intended need - as well as ugly)
but considering some of the crap produced during the 1990's and 2000's so
far, I can't help but wonder what current buildings will look like from
the vantage of several decades in the future.
At least Milwaukee didn't wind up with an AmShak, which is what was
proposed to replace Portland's Union Station some years back, but
thankfully didn't.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Merritt Mullen
<nasadowsk-541FE...@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net>,
Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> But as far as building nice looking stations? There's so many in the
> US, I'm sure we can fit everyone's arcetechtual (and spelling!) tastes
> in, and anyway, as long as the station is clean, functional, and safe,
> Amtrak's got a lot more to worry about these days....
Amen! California has a lot of new stations, as well as a number of
refurbished ones, and both types look good and work well. Functionality
is the prime criterion, however.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
<brasil98-160...@dial-206-102-3-239.dial.easystreet.com>,
bras...@despammed.com (bras...@despammed.com) wrote:
> I agree that some stuff built in the 1960's is pretty awful (some
> downright non-functional in meeting the intended need - as well as ugly)
> but considering some of the crap produced during the 1990's and 2000's so
> far, I can't help but wonder what current buildings will look like from
> the vantage of several decades in the future.
I think you are talking about one's personal taste, and no one style will
please everyone. But we all can agree that a RR station primary purpose
is utilitarian, so if it works well and is well maintained, we shouldn't
be too critical.
Michael G. Koerner
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Milwaukee has a stupendous cathedral in the middle of town, St. Josephat (sp).
>
> Built by long-departed Poles. The dome looks like you're in the middle of Europe.
St Josephat's Basilica. It is a true landmark along I-43/94 somewhere
between Greenfield and Beecher Avs, although I forget offhand exactly
what street (Mitchell Av?), on the city's south side.
Another HUGE Catholic church is the 'Gesu' church, built like a gothic
cathedral, located on Wisconsin Av on the Marquette University campus.
Interestingly, neither one is the 'mother church' of the Catholic
Arch-Diocese of Milwaukee.
bras...@despammed.com
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
*Style*, and "Ugly" is a matter of opinion and taste. "Crap" is a
different matter. By criticizing the "crap" produced in recent years, I
was also referring to the funciton, or other parts of basic design.
For example, the Portland Building was supposed to be this wonderful
example of modern architecture and so forth and be an example of how
buildings of the future would be built.
Let's hope not. About 10 years after it was finished they were already
having considerable structural problems with the thing (ie, ceilings
falling down, entire sections having to be braced with cables, etc), and
had to do some major structural changes just to keep the building from
collapsing due to its own weight.
Unfortunately, I think there have been an awful lot of these cheap,
corner-cutting type of buildings thrown up in recent years, and that it
will probably not be clear until another 10 years or so have gone by just
how badly companies / governments got cheated duirng the past 15 years or
so.
Jeff nor Lisa
> walked by it. built in 1965 by the Milwaukee Rd. a charmless, totally
> ugly modern bldg with a dingy and depressing interior.
The answer is that the station was built in the 1960s by a
freight railroad. At that time, passenger service was losing
money and was tolerated if not abandoned. When a railroad
had to spend money, such as building a new station, they did
it quick and cheap. There are lots of examples of ugly
station buildings like that all over the country. Indeed,
at least there's an actual station building, some places
had only a strip of asphalt if even that.
Often stations were relocated to an inconvenient location
in a lousy part of town. For instance, the PRSL station
in Atlantic City NJ was pushed way out on account of
construction of the AC Expy. Indeed, many psgr stations
were torn down or constricted as a result of highway work.
In architecture, it is said that "people hate their parents
and love their grandparents". That is, buildings older
than 50 years are beloved and preserved, but old buildings
younger than that (ie 25-50 years old) are scorned. Tastes
change over time. Tastes also vary.
It must be remembered that the people who mattered the most--
the actual passengers--shed no tears when NYC's Pennsylvania
Station headhouse was torn down. It was dirty, dark, and
depressing. The replacement station, when it opened, was
much brighter and welcoming. Today, we don't care for dropped
ceilings and flourescent lighting, but in the mid 1960s that
was seen as very attractive and desirable. Another issue
that preservationists are too lazy to think about is who
was supposed to pay the property taxes ($1 million a year)
and maintain an old building. Preservationists have a
double standard--they claim a building should be protected
because "it belongs to the people", but yet expect a private
owner to foot the bill.
> a sad hertz clerk was in there reading the paper. why would hertz even
> staff an office in such a low-business location?
Don't know. But car rental agencies usually have a downtown
location as well as an airport location, and perhaps this one
serves as that.
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> In architecture, it is said that "people hate their parents
> and love their grandparents". That is, buildings older
> than 50 years are beloved and preserved, but old buildings
> younger than that (ie 25-50 years old) are scorned. Tastes
> change over time. Tastes also vary.
True.
> It must be remembered that the people who mattered the most--
> the actual passengers--shed no tears when NYC's Pennsylvania
> Station headhouse was torn down. It was dirty, dark, and
> depressing. The replacement station, when it opened, was
> much brighter and welcoming.
True too. I've sen pics of Penn. It really doesn't look as great as
everyone's said, and not close to what GCT was.
GCT probbably was saved because of the Penn uproar, but in any case, is
IMHO a more attractive station. The MTA's been able to at least
somewhat turn it into a tourist trap, though it remains first and
formost an important rail station. Penn is an even more important hub,
but hardly a tourist trap and I doubt the Farley project (if it's ever
built) will help any.
> Today, we don't care for dropped
> ceilings and flourescent lighting, but in the mid 1960s that
> was seen as very attractive and desirable.
It was 'modern', just like the homes near me with the tiny windows (the
reasoning being that with a/c, you didn't need windows to open or see
out of!). Granted Penn is hardly a work of art (The PRR couldn't afford
anyone decent, it seems), but it was probbably seen as a big upgrade in
the 60's.
anyway, the origional Penn Station is still very much there - only the
above ground portions were demolished - the below ground portions were
covered up and renovated, but there's still a LOT of remants of the
origional station if you look closely...
> Another issue
> that preservationists are too lazy to think about is who
> was supposed to pay the property taxes ($1 million a year)
> and maintain an old building. Preservationists have a
> double standard--they claim a building should be protected
> because "it belongs to the people", but yet expect a private
> owner to foot the bill.
IIRC, NYC's law give taxs breaks, etc for having such a building.
Especially if it's a high profile building, landmark status can be a big
plus - I doubt the owners of the Empire State Building really mind it
being designated as such. Oh yes, for the out of towners visting NYC -
do visit the ESB and Chrysler buildings (and the New Building a few
blocks east) and Rockafeller Center. All are great examples of art
deco, and are all very beautiful.
I'm not sure if it's a myth, but supposedly, the top top floor of the
Chrysler Building is little more than a lone bathroom with a nice view
of the East River...
Allston Parking Refugee
> and love their grandparents". That is, buildings older
> than 50 years are beloved and preserved, but old buildings
> younger than that (ie 25-50 years old) are scorned. Tastes
> change over time. Tastes also vary.
People like to say this, but there are some buildings which were, are,
and will continue to be hideous. Let's see if, in the year 2030,
people are praising buildings like Boston's City Hall, New York's
brick high-rise housing projects, and the Port Authority Bus Terminal.
(I'll bring up the topic in this newsgroup if I remember.) IMO some
1960s buildings are pleasant but not awe-inspiring, and a few are
actually pleasing to the eye, but there are many where my only
response is "What was the architect THINKING?"
IMO the "freeze our neighborhood in time" movement exists because
contemporary architecture has failed us. It didn't used to be a
problem to tear down old buildings in cities and put up new ones,
since the new ones fit with the character of the neighborhoods and
were interesting and pleasing in themselves. In Cambridge, MA,
Victorian houses are mixed in with 1910s and 1920s 3-story brick
apartment buildings, and it works very well. In the past, Venice
dealt with its sinking problem by tearing down buildings and putting
up new ones on top of the rubble. Today this isn't allowed, and the
flooding gets worse every year. Modern buildings tend to be set-back
monoliths that don't form a continuous streetscape with surrounding
buildings, both in form and materials.
> It must be remembered that the people who mattered the most--
> the actual passengers--shed no tears when NYC's Pennsylvania
> Station headhouse was torn down. It was dirty, dark, and
> depressing. The replacement station, when it opened, was
> much brighter and welcoming.
Does http://www.interpage.net/metroliner/Img005_1.jpg look
particularly bright and welcoming to you? Where was the movement to
tear down other run-down but historic buildings, such as Grand Central
and Washington's Union Station?
> Today, we don't care for dropped
> ceilings and flourescent lighting, but in the mid 1960s that
> was seen as very attractive and desirable.
Please provide a primary source cite that supports your assertion that
passengers preferred the new station.
> Another issue
> that preservationists are too lazy to think about is who
> was supposed to pay the property taxes ($1 million a year)
> and maintain an old building. Preservationists have a
> double standard--they claim a building should be protected
> because "it belongs to the people", but yet expect a private
> owner to foot the bill.
Madison Square Garden is exempt from property taxes. So it's not the
preservationists who got the free ride -- it's the developers.
-Apr
Jeff nor Lisa
> GCT probbably was saved because of the Penn uproar
Yes, laws were passed and the PC was barred from making
changes. But it was an extremely costly "victory"
for all sides.
For the creditors and stockholders of the Penn Central--
many of whom were small potatos people--they lost out
since they had an asset that was confiscated from them.*
The public lost out, too. While the building was "saved",
there was no money to maintain it, let alone restore it.
So commuters and the railroad had to live with a decrepit
wreck for 30 years until the MTA finally came up with money
to lease it and restore it.
The restoration cost far, far more than it should have because
so much of the buildings understructure was rotted out. Unrepaired
problems allowed decay to get very bad in the last 30 years.
Had the MTA bought the building in 1970 (as they ended up doing
30 years later anyway), they could've prevented all that very
expensive decay, and the public would've had a nice building to
use.
> It was 'modern', just like the homes near me with the tiny windows (the
> reasoning being that with a/c, you didn't need windows to open or see
> out of!).
I read that Levitt used small high windows to maintain privacy.
I think builders did it to save money.
> IIRC, NYC's law give taxs breaks, etc for having such a building.
> Especially if it's a high profile building, landmark status can be a big
> plus - I doubt the owners of the Empire State Building really mind it
> being designated as such.
I don't know if those tax breaks existed back then. IIRC, some
very nice buildings got hit badly with high taxes. For instance,
one architecturally significant building had a big (and basically
useless) open public plaza. It has limited rentable space, but
the plaza is taxed. Another building with an expensive quality
facade was taxed heavilly. All these situations discourage
developers from putting up architectural beauties and schlock
instead.
* Preversationists don't think about the cost of maintaining
an old building, especially a railroad station where there is
no money coming in. Imagine when you retire you go to the bank
to withdraw your savings. The bank tells you the money is gone
because the bank was ordered to keep and maintain and obsolete
but historic old bank building downtown. Preservations think
corporations have unlimited money and resources and that is not
always true, especially in the case of the Penn Central which
was broke.
Allston Parking Refugee
> I'm not sure if it's a myth, but supposedly, the top top floor of the
> Chrysler Building is little more than a lone bathroom with a nice view
> of the East River...
Top floors of narrow towers are interesting places. Reaching the
upper tower of the Williamsburgh Bank^H^H HSBC Building in Downtown
Brooklyn, which is the second-tallest building on Long Island (after
the newish Citibank building in Long Island City), requires a change
of elevators since it's so narrow and doesn't line up with the main
elevator shaft. For some reason the whole upper section is filled
with dentist's offices.
Unfortunately it has gotten very difficult to explore the upper floors
of buildings. Also unfortunately, the tops of buildings built today
are dumping grounds for cooling equipment and antennas, so interesting
tower-tops like those on the Chrysler and Empire State don't get built
any more.
-Apr
Joe Bachman
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200207.html
For Mr. Kusntler's July 2002 installment of his photographic series of
architectural criticsm.
Go to his main web page for his unique rants about the state of the
world, from the standpoint of discussing suburban sprawl and why its
so horrible.
I found his books "The Geography of Nowhere" and "Home from Nowhere"
to be very informative, if you're interested in getting some
background about why America looks as lousy as it does, and what they
could do to make it look better.
tarkania...@spamgourmet.com (Khalid Rahim) wrote in message news:<34884d96.03061...@posting.google.com>...
Jeff nor Lisa
> Does http://www.interpage.net/metroliner/Img005_1.jpg look
> particularly bright and welcoming to you?
The picture looks underexposed. Also, is that how the ticket
office looked when the station was rebuilt, or was that a
subsequent remodeling? Amtrak didn't come along until 1971
and the station was done well before that.
> Where was the movement to
> tear down other run-down but historic buildings, such as Grand Central
> and Washington's Union Station?
The owner of Grand Central Terminal sought to improve its income
by various proposals to tear down the main concourse and put a
big office building on top of it.
I suspect the Pan Am Bldg would not have been allowed had the
preservation laws been in effect when it was built.
> > Today, we don't care for dropped
> > ceilings and flourescent lighting, but in the mid 1960s that
> > was seen as very attractive and desirable.
> Please provide a primary source cite that supports your assertion that
> passengers preferred the new station.
I don't have a newspaper or book source if that's what you want.
I do know from using the station in 1968 that other passengers were
pleased by it for the reasons mentioned earlier. I also recall
positive statements made on TV.
Do you have a primary source in which _everyday_ passengers say
they disliked the new station?
> > Another issue
> > that preservationists are too lazy to think about is who
> > was supposed to pay the property taxes ($1 million a year)
> > and maintain an old building.
> Madison Square Garden is exempt from property taxes. So it's not the
> preservationists who got the free ride -- it's the developers.
Was this MSG exempt from property taxes when it opened? Middleton
says in his book that the PRR was paying $1 million in property taxes
for the old building. I suspect MSG did pay property taxes when
it opened in the late 1960s, but at least it was generating some
revenue to cover that cost.
John Obert
required to maintain their property to published standards,
On the a PBS show this week they showed how some qays are using these type
of laws to drive the poor blacks out of their homes in Columbus.
In Chicago this week we are telling a charter school for drop outs not only
must they pay the fines for not repairing and up keeping their building they
want to move into but they will have to pay the city for tearing it down.
If you build a new sub division in the burbs you have to give the school
district and parks money or land set aside land donated to the city for
roads and put in sewers.
It part of the cost of doing business if you cannot pay it you should go out
of business just like PC
abdul rahim
The fabulous train station designed by the great Beaux Arts firm of
McKim, Meade, and White, conceived to emulate the Baths of Caracalla
in Rome, was at that time barely fifty years old. But as I approached
the main portico that terminated 33rd Street at Seventh Avenue, it
seemed so monumental and ancient in its grandeur that it must have
already been standing in place when Peter Minuet swindled the poor
Indians out of their Island.
to be found in his memoir of 1957 at
http://www.kunstler.com/memoirs_1959_station.htm
Philip Nasadowski
garth....@spamgourmet.com (abdul rahim) wrote:
> a prime offender of the desolate, miserable 1960s was gropius, who
> planted the pan am bldg on park ave. and obliterated the great view up
> and down park ave. from the New York Central bldg.
Hardly. The Pan Am building is one of the more attractive and
distictive recent ones in NYC. Most stuff since then has been rather
poor, though there are a few that stand out. The Citicorp, (former)
AT&T, that one with the big red 9 outside who's name slips me, and the
former WTC are all attractive buildings. It's weird, but the UN
building was criticized when new, but is now regarded as a 'classic', as
was the former WTC, which people grew to love even though the twin
towers pretty much DID dominate the view in lower Manhattan. But they
were done very tastefully. I doubt the replacement will be as
attractive :(
The Conde Nast building, the new construction around Columbus Circle,
etc are all *ugly* structures. At least now, 20 years from now people
might not think so.
Lest we forget - the Post Office accross the street from Penn is built
in the same style and sports a close look to the former Penn.
Ironically, it's going to be torn up and chopped up to 'recreate' the
old Penn Station inside it. The real sad thing about Farley is it
solves no problems and offers no advantages to the area or travelers on
Amtrak (or anytone else), yet will destroy an origional building as old
(almost as old?) as Penn in the process.
I'd rather see a modern Penn and MSG replacement on he current property,
from below track level *up*.
Peter Schleifer
(Allston Parking Refugee) wrote:
>Top floors of narrow towers are interesting places. Reaching the
>upper tower of the Williamsburgh Bank^H^H HSBC Building in Downtown
>Brooklyn, which is the second-tallest building on Long Island (after
>the newish Citibank building in Long Island City), requires a change
>of elevators since it's so narrow and doesn't line up with the main
>elevator shaft. For some reason the whole upper section is filled
>with dentist's offices.
And orthodontists. I can see my house from the 20th floor when my
daughter is at the orthodontist.
>Unfortunately it has gotten very difficult to explore the upper floors
>of buildings.
You can't even get into the Bank building (no one calls it HSBC) if
your name isn't on the list of people with appointments. I don't know
what would stop a terrorist from making a dentist appointment first if
they were planning some mayhem in HSBC.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Who mistook my steak for chicken?"
Jeff nor Lisa
> It part of the cost of doing business if you cannot pay it you should go out
> of business just like PC
The US Constitution forbids "ex post facto" laws. That is, you
can't pass a law after the fact and use it to go back and punish
somebody for doing something legal in the past.
A problem with historic district and designations is that they
are imposed on a property owner _after_ the fact. They are
also imposed selectively and unfairly. That is, if my building
is deemed "worthy", I am restricted in how I may use it and earn
money from it. But on the other hand, if your building is not
so designated, you can do whatever you want with it, including
tearing it down and replacing it with something else more
appropriate to the site.
Historic preservation, esp after the fact, imposes an unfair
economic burden on the property owner.
As to suburban communities, the restrictions are built into
the original deed, and all buyers are aware of them (or should
be) going in at the start. So, if you buy a building in a planned
community, you know at the start you're at the mercy of the
community managers, and it is your choice to buy that building
or not.
One small town learned the hard way about the economic costs.
It cited a resident for failing to maintain--per expensive
historical standards--her home. The resident had no money
and was going to abandon the property. The town suddenly
realized that they'd get stuck with it and have to pay the
big bucks which they didn't have to restore the property to
their historical specifications. They had to back off their
demands. The town also got very negative publicity from its
tough stance.
I still am waiting for a preservationist to explain why
historic districts insist on keeping original wood siding
(which is expensive to maintain) and not allow replacement
identical appearing vinyl siding.
Michael G. Koerner
>
> John Obert <isp...@ameritech.net> wrote
>
>
> > It part of the cost of doing business if you cannot pay it you should go out
> > of business just like PC
>
> The US Constitution forbids "ex post facto" laws. That is, you
> can't pass a law after the fact and use it to go back and punish
> somebody for doing something legal in the past.
I'm wondering when we'll see some of our environmental laws overturned
due to that clause, especially the ones that are requiring expensive
land-owner funded cleanup of stuff that was legally dumped years ago.
I have been souring on the whole concept of 'zoning' in recent years,
especially when it is manifested in ultra-picky rules of how a property
can look.
If a building has no economic use, no 'historic preservation' edict will
change that fact.
Ken Rose
>
> John Obert <isp...@ameritech.net> wrote
>
>
> > It part of the cost of doing business if you cannot pay it you should go out
> > of business just like PC
>
> The US Constitution forbids "ex post facto" laws. That is, you
> can't pass a law after the fact and use it to go back and punish
> somebody for doing something legal in the past.
>
> A problem with historic district and designations is that they
> are imposed on a property owner _after_ the fact. They are
> also imposed selectively and unfairly. That is, if my building
> is deemed "worthy", I am restricted in how I may use it and earn
> money from it. But on the other hand, if your building is not
> so designated, you can do whatever you want with it, including
> tearing it down and replacing it with something else more
> appropriate to the site.
Well, it does impose a burden that may be unfair, but it's not ex post
facto if it only regulates what you do after the law is passed.
Fighting it as a taking of private property for public use may be more
productive.
- ken
Noel Stoutenburg
> > > It part of the cost of doing business if you cannot pay it you should go out
> > > of business just like PC
> >
> > The US Constitution forbids "ex post facto" laws. That is, you
> > can't pass a law after the fact and use it to go back and punish
> > somebody for doing something legal in the past.
Micael responded, in part:
> I'm wondering when we'll see some of our environmental laws overturned
> due to that clause, especially the ones that are requiring expensive
> land-owner funded cleanup of stuff that was legally dumped years ago.
Those types of environmental laws will not be overturned on the basis of the "ex
post facto" clause, for a couple of reasons: first, the dumping that was originally
done (assuming it was done legally at the time) has not been made a crime.
Secondly, even if someone does a legal act, if it harms someone else, the person
harmed can bring civil action, and the clean-up costs generally involve civil,
rather than criminal situations.
ns
Jordan Bettis
Using that argument, someone could make the same claim that building
an airport or a freeway nearby is an illegal taking of private
property by lowering your property value.
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
There's something conservatives have to learn here which is that a
market is not a spontaneous creation. It doesn't just pop out of the
social soil like dandelions out of a suburban lawn. It's a government
creation.
-- George Will
Jeff nor Lisa
> If a building has no economic use, no 'historic preservation' edict will
> change that fact.
Here's an example of how a town shot itself in the foot with what
you're speaking of:
There was an indepedently owned ("mom 'n pop") drugstore even with
an old fashioned soda fountain. In the back of the property was
an old stone structure in very bad shape. The druggist wanted to
tear it town to add more parking spaces. The town declared the
old structure "historic" and refused permission for demolition.
The liability insurance on the stone structure was very expensive.
The druggist ended up going out of business.
So the town lost a traditional drugstore.
The town also ended up with a liability. It took title to
the stone structure and then discovered it had to spend money
just to stabilize it from collapsing. It also discovered there
was really wasn't any historical architectural significance to
the building other than it was old. The town is now trying to
figure out how to restore it into something useful without
breaking the bank.
So as you can see, just because a building has no economic
value doesn't mean the preservationists will spend your money
to preserve it.
(null)
Oh I see. They will put a man out of business and then figure
out what to do next.
--
George Conklin, Durham, NC: Medicare For All Ages
If HMOs ran the post office, the AMA (American Mail Association)
would declare that getting mail was a privilege, not a right
and 43 million Americans would get no mail delivery.
Ken Rose
>
> Ken Rose <ken...@tfb.com> writes:
> > Well, it does impose a burden that may be unfair, but it's not ex
> > post facto if it only regulates what you do after the law is passed.
> > Fighting it as a taking of private property for public use may be
> > more productive.
>
> Using that argument, someone could make the same claim that building
> an airport or a freeway nearby is an illegal taking of private
> property by lowering your property value.
Yeah, they probably will. And probably have. I have less trouble with
that than with people who buy a house off the end of a runway, and then
want something done about all the airplanes flying over. Or to put it
back in a railroad context, buy a house next to the tracks, and then
complain about the horns.
John Obert
that is inoperative at this time . It like the freedom of speech and the
right to a lawyer and jury parts we don't use any more.
I always thought the right to bare arms guys in the NRA would be getting
their guns and defending the rights of US citzens by now but I guess that
was just their bullcrap too
John
in article 3EF76D56...@ticnet.com, Noel Stoutenburg at
mjo...@ticnet.com wrote on 6/23/03 4:12 PM:
LHW
down here in the south, and I wore short sleeves.
Lew
"John Obert" <j_o...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BB1FD61B.116BD%j_o...@sbcglobal.net...
John Obert
very nice .
in article bdg5io$a9p$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net, LHW at atr...@angelfire.com
wrote on 6/26/03 8:10 PM:
david parsons
Jeff nor Lisa <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>I still am waiting for a preservationist to explain why
>historic districts insist on keeping original wood siding
>(which is expensive to maintain) and not allow replacement
>identical appearing vinyl siding.
You mean aside from (a) it's not expensive to maintain and (b) there
is no such thing as identical appearing vinyl siding (unless you're
comparing against expensive looks-like-vinyl wood siding.)
____
david parsons \bi/ I suppose there's some appeal in the instant-ruin
\/ look of some of the cheaper new construction out
there.
PF
>>are imposed on a property owner _after_ the fact. They are
>>also imposed selectively and unfairly.
I don't know about what they do where YOU live, but that method is NOT a
good law! In NYC, they hava a PROCEDURE for landmarking a building.... File
notice, hear objections, allow appeals & exceptions, offer incentives...
finalize & approve.
CASE in point, the 800 (+/-) ft Woolworth Building.. was landmarked in the
'70's, after the Woolworth Co. said they needed to "improve" it... so the
City laid back while the "Restoration" was done with certain limits imposed
(actually, renovation). The result... the Gargoyles that were Famous
features were removed and "replaced" with cantilevered subsstitutes...
butfor good reason. They were becoming unsound features attached to the
facade at 500+ ft above the street. After the terracotta was cleaned and
patched, the landmark went through... with LESS maintenance required for
future owners.
>>Historic preservation, esp after the fact, imposes an unfair
>>economic burden on the property owner.
Also NOT SO! The Federal landmark law offers tax reduction or exemption for
landmarks on it's books. Also, see above.
>>I still am waiting for a preservationist to explain why
>>historic districts insist on keeping original wood siding
>>(which is expensive to maintain) and not allow replacement
>>identical appearing vinyl siding.
Can you find "Identical" vinyl siding for antique clapboard? the dimensions
(width) are different and that has a GREAT visual difference. Also, they
all have dull colors... find me an Iron-oxide red in vinyl... NOT AVAILABLE!
Other than that... most communuities with SUCCESSFUL landmark laws allow for
materials substitutions.
As for MY town... hte Bozo's learned a bit, too! Seems they had a "plan"
for uniform appearance in the "downtown" area... and then tried to impose
that spec on a property just 40 feet away, across one street, on the
adjacent corner. They backed down after 5 months... and I was about to write
the new owner to challenge the "specs" as unenforceable, since so many
people openly ignore the codes that apply to them (outside that district)
without consequence.
Philip Nasadowski
<4VaRa.57421$3o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"PF" <P.friedrich_12*nospam*@att.net> wrote:
> I don't know about what they do where YOU live, but that method is NOT a
> good law! In NYC, they hava a PROCEDURE for landmarking a building.... File
> notice, hear objections, allow appeals & exceptions, offer incentives...
> finalize & approve.
In NYC, a high profile address getting landmark status can be a big
plus. People are weird about stuff like that - some NYC firms wish to
keep their 212 area code because of what it means to people, and the new
area code doesn't have that prestige factor. Saying you have a
headquaters in Manhattan tends to give a firm 'weight' in people's
minds. Add that it's a landmark building....
Not to mention a lot of landmarks are utterly beautiful. The 3 second
clip of Rockafeller Center you see on the NBC Nightly News intro doesn't
even begin to show the beauty of that area...
PF
my wife worked once with people from Wastern Europe: post Waraw Bloc
She had a few clients visit for a few days... needed a bit of time to kill
between end of business and dinner...
I met them and took them through the lobby of RC, Chrysler bldg., (and other
landmarks), taking care to point out the sculpture and murals... mostly
praising the "laborers" who built these places...
Seems that was a hit with "socialist" culture ... even ours in the '30's!