RM 04-11-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Ben0edevelopment Commission Regular Me ting - April 11, 1980 7. PROGRESS REPORTS Mr. Ellison: We are moving as rapidly as po sible. Obviously, the Commission has an obligation, if it is going to dispose of the building, to have some assurances of what is go ng to happen to it. Clearly, what we are doing now is facilitating that process. As you may recall from the proposal presen- tations, no two people wanted to do the same thing to the building. That is the nature of rehab. It tends to be rather inexact, and tends to lend itself to a great deal of creativity. One of the problems that we have had in the past is trying to evaluate and. decide that one treatment was better or worse from an aesthetic point of view and from a structural one than another. Clearly, we have needed some additional guidance and this guidance at this stage is becoming rather detailed. We see it as simply a necessary step in th process. Nis. Derbeck: I take it when you are talking about feasibility anyway that you are not talking so much about the soundness of the structure but the economics? Mr. Nimtz: The economics, that is right, in the present day market. Mr. Ellison: There is much disagreement ov r what is economically feasible and what is not. Mr. Robinson: I don't believe they have convinced us that we are totally satisfied th t they are going to complete the project. In other words, if they start it, and they do 't have any success, we can see that it is gradually going to get worse and worse, an there will be no benefit whatsoever. Mrs. Allen: This was never done on the other projects that were done. Mr Robinson: That is totally different, you are talking about a new facility and you are talking about having new facilities all the way around in the existing structure which might be detrimental to the whole downtown renewal if they didn't co plete it. -30-