And another thread derailed....

I maintain that someone has the right to call Meg Salyer out on an issue, any issue as long as there's a reason and its germane, regardless of whether SHE personally has saved a few old buildings and cute puppies and likes long walks on the beach and Chardonnay. If you don't have the ability to respectfully call your friend out for being ABSENT ON AN ISSUE then you are also absent on an issue.

HP in OKC has become an issue that nobody is willing to even stick up for. It's gotten the Ed Shadid kiss of death.

Demonstrators make one last effort to save Film Exchange buildin (http://www.okcfox.com/story/29837951/demonstrators-make-one-last-effort-to-save-film-exchange-building9)

I really was hoping to make it but construction at my house and meetings at work overwhelmed me yesterday and I wasn't free until 11PM.

From twitter (https://twitter.com/briOKC/status/634381030430871552):


Brianna Bailey
Downtown design review committee decided to delay vote on demolition of film exchange building on south Robinson #okc @newsok

:rolleyes: What are you gonna do, right? RIGHT?

The building could even be used as a multi-purpose park facility for when (can we just say "if" at this point?), the C2S park comes through. It could be used as an information center that is becoming common, and in some cases, IS common in parks. An indoor facility people spending the day in the park can go for general information, brief relief via a/c, heat, grab a drink etc. Much like Forsyth Park Cafe (Fort) is utilized in Savannah, GA. It's an old fort in a public park that contains a Starbucks (I think) and a facility people can use without having to leave the park.

Someone mentioned deja vu... Yea. Quit tearing stuff down just for the sake of doing it or because it's "old." So much of OKC has been torn down.

Film Exchange Building given reprieve from wrecking ball (http://newsok.com/article/5441308?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter)


The Downtown Design Review Committee decided to delay voting on the demolition to allow more time to decide whether the building could be saved.

It's almost like defeat on this particular issue isn't a foregone conclusion.

What is your point? Why are you all puffed up again over this? She is not for saving this or any of the countless buildings that have been demolished.

I want to really put you in your place for how needlessly personal you're making this, but I happen to personally respect you despite that you always pull this **** on this forum... It's always all about you and not thread topics.

Accountability is a bitch when things aren't going well.

Oh, by all means, feel free to "put me in my place." I reserve the right to point out on this thread when someone makes a demonstrably false statement. That is hardly "getting puffed up." The only person making things personal here is you.

My point, since you asked for it, is again ONLY to point out that Meg is not "anti-HP", as you clearly DID call her. Is it fair to say you think she is absent on this? Sure. Anti-HP? That's a lie.

Beyond that, I agree that the effort to save that building is worthwhile. I'm not arguing with that point in the least. But you don't have to twist or distort to make that case.

That's the problem, Spartan. You bring value to the table in a lot of the points that you discuss on this board, but in an attempt to sell them you are crossing the line. You shouldn't have to rely on personal attack and mis-characterization to make an otherwise valid point. You could be winning people over, but instead you alienate them and turn them off. Witness the fact that you have regular friction with some of the people on this board with whom you share the most in the way of values. As far as people who don't already agree with you? You aren't converting them; they simply tune you out. That is unfortunate for the causes you champion.

11329

A 30 day reprieve! They want to see the big picture and determine for themselves, if this building hinders or can help. This includes the DDRC taking a tour of the building too.

ADDENDUM:

30 Days. One of the topic points from the Maps 3 Director and Architect was that when the overall plan was submitted to the public in 2006 as a survey and for discussion, no one voiced their concerns at the loss of any buildings in that area. They said the community did not speak up. My counter - "what community?" The entire area was in a state of blight still lingering from the 1970s. Any housing and former businesses from an entire community that once flourished all the way to Capital Hill, was gone. Wiped from the city landscape. Including most recently, the multi-story former post office building along SW 5th Street, the Salvation Army headquarters, and a multiple collection of other buildings.

Another implied point, with the statement "the building has sat vacant for years" was countered with my reminder that the property was owned and occupied by the Asset Group in 2009, who was prepared to renovate the property into their corporate offices with a massive budget and that this company would have brought in over a million dollars revenue annually. Their building permits were denied and that is when they learned of the park plan. The city acquired the property from them through eminent domain.

The Downtown Design Review Committee, had some pretty good questions of the Maps 3 staff too. Some of which they weren't able to provide at the time, like an overall map of this park and how whether this building would impact the park negatively or not. They wanted to know why it couldn't be a mixed public/profit use. They asked numerous times if the Maps 3 committee really did all they could.

Maps 3 stated that 90 days were given to two groups, one being a residential proposal, which they immediately turned down and the other being my group, to come up with a viable plan and a way to fund it. I countered with "90 days to raise the $50,000 for a 6 month feasibility study and complete said study - in 90 days. An impossible task. I pointed out now its been two years - I could have been given the time.

Maps 3 even added that the building had some paint on the building which hindered it and that its brick veneer was separating. I know that there isn't a single crack in that veneer. The lower half is painted (which can be removed) and the upper half is the original awesome colors! The original windows even remain below with the framing of the original still up top.

They said it wasn't in their budget to preserve that space - then give it up to entrepreneurs who will pay for it! Let them be partners with the park! Isn't that what they are looking for? Developers and investors? The solution is presented in this building.

This is when the City Manager's representative stepped in from their offices next door and added that the park was already over two years behind and that keeping this building would delay it even more. It was added that the entire park plan would have to be redone to accommodate the building. That this would all cost a lot more money and create even more delays.

They can start the park anytime. Just work around this space. Start on the SW corner. Even the DDRC felt uncomfortable with how rushed this demolition seemed. They proposed caution.

So in the end - they want to wait until the next meeting - 30 days away. They want to tour the building and see it for themselves.

So - what would you do if you had 30 days to find the solution that would keep you from dying?

That's what I - no we - as a community must do. Find a way. WITH A VOICE. This is not a decision that can be made from an armchair just Liking or Sharing or Tweeting. It must be made with your VOICE. We must bombard them with phone calls, emails, letters, articles and more. We CAN make a difference and should. We stopped the dozer when no one thought we could. Together we can turn it away forever. HELP ME. We couldn't save what has already been lost and what is currently being demolished. But we CAN SAVE THIS BUILDING. But I can't do it alone. Rally 'round the cause. Let's do this!

More obstruction of progress. Congrats.

This has been a public process. The park design was a public process. The city council meetings that approved this park design was a public process.

What you are doing do is just obstructing progress.

Vocal minority Going against the wishes and will of the majority of the city. When you have had years now to try to save this building and because educated people(council, maps 3 subcommittee, maps 3 board, park designers, city staff, the general public that want the park as planned. )disagree with your thoughts on this building you are now just trying to delay things.

I am I'm sure many other will now use this time to write letter to the council (who already approved this building removal). And ddrc. To get this building destroyed.

Things like this so far more harm to the HP efforts in this city than those that don't care about old buildings

Hurting your own cause and you don't even know it.

Vocal minority Going against the wishes and will of the huge majority of the city.

I'm not sure how you can say that when the majority of people in the city know absolutely nothing about this at all.

More obstruction of progress. Congrats.

This has been a public process. The park design was a public process. The city council meetings that approved this park design was a public process.

What you are doing do is just obstructing progress.

Vocal minority Going against the wishes and will of the huge majority of the city. When you have had years now to try to save this building and because educated people(council, maps 3 subcommittee, maps 3 board, park designers, city staff, the general public that want the park as planned. )disagree with your thoughts on this building

I am I'm sure many other will now use this time to write letter to the council (who already approved this building removal). And ddrc. To get this building destroyed.

Things like this so far more harm to the HP efforts in this city than those that don't care about old buildings

Hurting your own cause and you don't even know it.

http://crossfitrevenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/are-you-serious-wtf-meme-baby-face.jpg

That is valid I removed "huge". I still think it is the majority

There is zero chance the majority of the city knows enough about the exact specifics of this process to have an opinion on park plus this building versus park without this building. It's not like this is a binary discussion, either the park or the building with no room in between. If you phrased it like that, sure, I bet the majority would want the park. But that's not the actual conversation here, and everyone plugged enough in to be reading this thread knows it.

More obstruction of progress. Congrats.

This has been a public process. The park design was a public process. The city council meetings that approved this park design was a public process.

What you are doing do is just obstructing progress.

Vocal minority Going against the wishes and will of the majority of the city. When you have had years now to try to save this building and because educated people(council, maps 3 subcommittee, maps 3 board, park designers, city staff, the general public that want the park as planned. )disagree with your thoughts on this building you are now just trying to delay things.

I am I'm sure many other will now use this time to write letter to the council (who already approved this building removal). And ddrc. To get this building destroyed.

Things like this so far more harm to the HP efforts in this city than those that don't care about old buildings

Hurting your own cause and you don't even know it.

What did you say upthread? Accept your defeat. Move on.

want to take bets on this building being torn down. It is still a lock

One man's progress is another man's regress.

A city is a means to a way of life, but first we have to decide how we want to live. - Enrique Penalosa.

I thought it was decided that downtown and the downtown adjacent neighborhoods should consist of walkable urbanism. If so, then why aren't the urbanist put in charge of it.

Oh, by all means, feel free to "put me in my place." I reserve the right to point out on this thread when someone makes a demonstrably false statement. That is hardly "getting puffed up." The only person making things personal here is you.

My point, since you asked for it, is again ONLY to point out that Meg is not "anti-HP", as you clearly DID call her. Is it fair to say you think she is absent on this? Sure. Anti-HP? That's a lie.

Beyond that, I agree that the effort to save that building is worthwhile. I'm not arguing with that point in the least. But you don't have to twist or distort to make that case.

That's the problem, Spartan. You bring value to the table in a lot of the points that you discuss on this board, but in an attempt to sell them you are crossing the line. You shouldn't have to rely on personal attack and mis-characterization to make an otherwise valid point. You could be winning people over, but instead you alienate them and turn them off. Witness the fact that you have regular friction with some of the people on this board with whom you share the most in the way of values. As far as people who don't already agree with you? You aren't converting them; they simply tune you out. That is unfortunate for the causes you champion.

To be absent on these issues is to be anti-HP.

HP is a solid, proven investment opportunity so it really is a case where there is no upside to the absence of policy. Occasionally smart developers will continue to do just enough HP to provide cover for our glaring lack of policy and political will for preservation. If you're not pro-HP, in this case Meg has an amazing background that could give her strong credibility, then you're anti-HP. To reiterate the point that set you off, it really is this simple. The issue with Meg is that she facilitates this when she should be leading on this. It's a huge opportunity cost swing that the HP effort in this city WILL NEVER OVERCOME. If she alone decides to act, that changes everything for HP. It is that simple.

Side note, why do you always go personal? I brought Meg up because she was quoted the same day opposing the HP effort behind this, and Mr. Wynn wanted us to write to her. Do you have a reason? Why don't your ideas stand on their own, and why can't you accept good ideas from other voices, but rather only those packaged the exact same way you would?

You seem more interested in defending the order than fighting for change. I am shocked right now bc I have always known you get defensive, but never took you for closed-minded and myopic. Are you?

As for the causes, to be honest I've given up on winning over OKC Talk lol. It's not that big of a deal. In the end, I am right. I choose to do my work back east where right now I have the ability to get stuff done. I don't see anybody truly reforming OKC anytime soon, though that's not to say that the "moment" won't ever transpire. I've been holding my breath for a long time.

Urbanized - below I bolded the full context for the remark I made that you seem to object to. I wasn't saying that Meg has never done an HP project. What I said was something much more salient and much more relevant, and I'd like you to respond to that rather than get your pants in a wad.


No point in bothering to write to Meg if she is expecting to see funding in place before saving a historic structure. To me that's the cop-out way of saying you're anti-HP, plain and simple. By the way the building isn't for sale because it is owned by the City of OKC, whose architect has never been asked to seriously consider the building's possibilities.

She also seems to be under the impression that we can maintain a pro-HP face just because the community saved one thing in another area (the Film Exchange on Sheridan, in this case). When you have someone who believes that, you just have to realize they have different priorities, and while they won't fight against your priorities, they aren't going to be fighting FOR your priorities. That said, Meg is by far the best councilperson OKC has and is going to get, so my intent isn't to slam her but rather just speak from experience that getting ones hopes up leads to so much heartbreak. I have fought for so many buildings that all got demo'd, and I have been surprised after the fact by others that were torn down without advance warning.

I guess I am not sure if she misspoke, is misinformed, or just doesn't care. But either way she isn't serious bc this demo is a done deal, so I wouldn't even bother. Mr. Wynn, I appreciate your gusto and passion, but to be honest sometimes (read: almost always) building on OKC's awesome history is a lost cause, and you're just going to lose sleep over it either way.

It sounds like we even agree that she maintains "a pro-HP face."

I respect you too much to have an argument that is completely vapid and devoid of real truths. Sorry if I sound annoyed right now.

OMG get over yourself. I am satisfied enough with your snarky, belittling, insincere admission that Meg actually HAS "saved a few old buildings" (intentional gross understatement) - along with some nonsensical disparaging stuff about puppies and wine - to let this topic rest. That was my only issue, as I have consistently stated throughout this stupid sidebar. Regarding "getting personal," I suspect the irony of you making that accusation is lost on nobody on this board OTHER than yourself.

OMG get over yourself. I am satisfied enough with your snarky, belittling, insincere admission that Meg actually HAS "saved a few old buildings" (intentional gross understatement) - along with some nonsensical disparaging stuff about puppies and wine - to let this topic rest. That was my only issue, as I have consistently stated throughout this stupid sidebar. Regarding "getting personal," I suspect the irony of you making that accusation is lost on nobody on this board OTHER than yourself.

Help me understand how you're responding to anything germane here...

My point about puppies and wine wasn't to belittle Meg (why would I do that??) but rather to belittle you for making this personal. Yes I brought up Meg's political service. Conversely, I don't need James Greiner to start making smart HP investments as well. I need him to support an HP ordinance. I don't care what Greiner does in his personal life and nor should anyone else for crissakes.

I have tried the respectful route with you. Not just with every post in this thread, but every time you come at me. Honestly, I'm pretty much over dealing with you. Something is wrong with you.

Help me understand how you're responding to anything germane here...

My point about puppies and wine wasn't to belittle Meg (why would I do that??) but rather to belittle you for making this personal.

I have tried the respectful route with you. Not just with every post in this thread, but every time you come at me. Honestly, I'm pretty much over dealing with you. Something is wrong with you.

Great summation of your tactics. Disagreeing with a point or statement is not "getting personal", Spartan. No matter how aggravating it is to have someone disagree with you.

You don't seem to disagree w my statements but rather that I am making statements. As evidenced by this ridiculous exchange, that specific disagreement is hard for me to reconcile with you.

Come on guys. Both of you friends, press the reset button.

To have, or have not, a historic building in the park? That is the question. Where did Anthony McDermid stand on this? He is on the Park Subcommittee and does a fair amount of historic preservation work as an architect.

Look gang, regardless of what has transpired in the past, we all have an opportunity to step in and save this building. 30 days to mount a defense. This building can only enhance the park design, not hinder it. Help me out.

Look gang, regardless of what has transpired in the past, we all have an opportunity to step in and save this building. 30 days to mount a defense. This building can only enhance the park design, not hinder it. Help me out.

Shipwreck: I am deeply embarrassed of getting sucked into that flame vortex, and sorry because it did derail this thread. I want these threads to be germane, as we owe it to the good people and projects that hang in the balance and need the benefit of this forum to be heard.

While it's awesome that you won another week of consideration from the DDRC, be careful because they have still never saved a building at the second or third hearing, where the applicant always eventually wins. I only say that so you're prepared and won't let the DDRC "get away with it" so to speak, lol.

(I am prepared to get sucked into the most vitriolic flame war about the personal business activities of each and every DDRC member, of which I'm already well aware.)

This thread has me too exhausted to go after boulder sooner. Someone else do it. This will all have to get deleted anyway...

Look gang, regardless of what has transpired in the past, we all have an opportunity to step in and save this building. 30 days to mount a defense. This building can only enhance the park design, not hinder it. Help me out.

Besides phone calls or emails, is there anything else we can do to help?

This thread has me too exhausted to go after boulder sooner. Someone else do it. This will all have to get deleted anyway...

I thought about it but then I remembered 2 things:

1) Bouldersooner is too far gone to be saved and,
2) I don't care enough anymore.

Hmmmmmm

Could the city incorporate into the park without blowing the budget completely? If they can't, would the city be allowed to rehab it and flip it? Convert into retail and condos/apartments and sell it off at cost? Building a park next door would make it desirable place to live/retail.

Hmmmmmm

Could the city incorporate into the park without blowing the budget completely? If they can't, would the city be allowed to rehab it and flip it? Convert into retail and condos/apartments and sell it off at cost? Building a park next door would make it desirable place to live/retail.

Naw, that would never work. Let's just get out the bulldozer. :rolleyes:

Besides phone calls or emails, is there anything else we can do to help?

I'm working on a plan now. Thx!

I drive this building everyday, and while I'm certainly not a "put a wrecking ball to everything old" kinda guy (I can and do appreciate old structures that have some redeeming features, i.e. Union Station and FNC), I absolutely do not get the fuss over this building.

Apologies for the double post

I'm working on a plan now. Thx!

Would you be okay with an adaptive reuse that heavily changes the building? One idea might be to take a few walls out and open the structure up like a pavilion. Perhaps there is a way that said pavilion could be very open to facilitate the north-to-south flow they want along the active edge.

I am not against Hargreaves having a workable slate, because I really do want their best work. However what we have gotten from them so far is not their best work, and is in fact extremely boilerplate. It would be really smart to keep the Film Exchange to force them to really tie the park deeper into what is unique about OKC.

I drive this building everyday, and while I'm certainly not a "put a wrecking ball to everything old" kinda guy (I can and do appreciate old structures that have some redeeming features, i.e. Union Station and FNC), I absolutely do not get the fuss over this building.

I have never appreciated this building until I started looking at some of the detail a little closer. My main thing is they are tearing down a very viable building for grass. There is so much potential for this building and some really cool things that could be done with it to just tear it down for grass. The grassy areas of the park are is plenty big enough without this little section.

I'm working on a plan now. Thx!

I am witnessing this from several thousand miles away, however will display any support I can.

Please keep us updated as to what we can do to help.

We have demo'd enough of OKC's history, we don't need to keep doing it just because.

I drive by this building every day. Until I-40 was moved I had no idea it even existed. But, it now stands as one of the few older buildings downtown that hasn't yet been destroyed by the powers that be. Frankly, if it did not seem like Oklahoma City was returning to the days of Urban Renewal (the big hole full of water that exists where the theater once stood and the destruction of the bus station are just the more recent examples), perhaps I wouldn't care much about destroying this Film Exchange Building. But, now it (or rather its imminent destruction) is symbolic of a change in course that is not good or beneficial to the long term environment of downtown Oklahoma City.

What will be there in its place? Grass? Another parking lot? Maybe a nice metal shed where the parks and recreation people can store their lawnmowers. Yeah, that will be great. :doh:

Could the city incorporate into the park without blowing the budget completely? If they can't, would the city be allowed to rehab it and flip it? Convert into retail and condos/apartments and sell it off at cost? Building a park next door would make it desirable place to live/retail.

There is a restriction on the deed that bars the city from selling it to a private owner.

There is a restriction on the deed that bars the city from selling it to a private owner.

That does not exactly rule everything out, the city owns multiple properties non-profits either paid for renovations or new construction that then lease/manage the property for a dollar. The biggest issue here seems that there is no will by the council to have it kept.

If only there was a way to make it taller and cover it with reflective glass, then it might be deemed 'special' enough to have some champions amongst the powers that be

So should the council support the vocal minority of hp zealots.

Yeah, those darn "zealots" keep messing up our city with their Bricktowns, Midtowns, Uptowns, Autmobile Alleys, Plaza Districts, Film Rows, Paseos, and whatever funny little districts they and the rest of the people who come to the city core like to hang out in. Maybe if there weren't so many old buildings around that people keep revitalizing into new and unique attractions more people would actually start coming to these downtown districts again and have more of that allusive progress you've been telling us about. To think that many people actually live in HP districts with their above average appreciation rates, trees, and old timey looking homes.

Please, tell us about that thing called progress again.

Can the council simply ask Hargreaves to study it and present 1 alternative that shows the Film Exchange incorporated into the "active edge"? Let's see what this could be like before we call in the wrecking ball.

This isn't the city not wanting to intervene and deny a private developer's demo permit. This is the city itself leading by example - unwilling to even consider HP for a cool landmark. The city cannot remotely claim to be pro-HP anymore, and this represents a change for the worse. OKC did reasonably support HP back in the 90s and early 00s. Post-Claus era is proving to be different, so far.

Can the council simply ask Hargreaves to study it and present 1 alternative that shows the Film Exchange incorporated into the "active edge"? Let's see what this could be like before we call in the wrecking ball.

This isn't the city not wanting to intervene and deny a private developer's demo permit. This is the city itself leading by example - unwilling to even consider HP for a cool landmark. The city cannot remotely claim to be pro-HP anymore, and this represents a change for the worse. OKC did reasonably support HP back in the 90s and early 00s. Post-Claus era is proving to be different, so far.

I need to look back, but I faintly recall Steve pressing Council/Public Works on asking Hargreaves about the use of the building in the park long ago, and the Hargreaves project manager brushed it off... I could be recalling incorrectly, but that's what I remember.

EDIT: I looked back and found a July 23, 2013 column from Steve. http://newsok.com/saying-goodbye-to-the-film-exchange-building-and-the-story-youve-not-been-told/article/3865681

Maybe I'll go to a meeting and propose that it be a museum for all of the buildings that have been torn down in OKC. It'd be pretty easy to fill up. Basically, just blow up all the pictures from The Vanished Splendor and hang em up.

I need to look back, but I faintly recall Steve pressing Council/Public Works on asking Hargreaves about the use of the building in the park long ago, and the Hargreaves project manager brushed it off... I could be recalling incorrectly, but that's what I remember.

EDIT: I looked back and found a July 23, 2013 column from Steve. Saying Goodbye to the Film Exchange Building - and the Story You've Not Been Told | News OK (http://newsok.com/saying-goodbye-to-the-film-exchange-building-and-the-story-youve-not-been-told/article/3865681)

It seems we serve them, not the other way around.

I need to look back, but I faintly recall Steve pressing Council/Public Works on asking Hargreaves about the use of the building in the park long ago, and the Hargreaves project manager brushed it off... I could be recalling incorrectly, but that's what I remember.

EDIT: I looked back and found a July 23, 2013 column from Steve. Saying Goodbye to the Film Exchange Building - and the Story You've Not Been Told | News OK (http://newsok.com/saying-goodbye-to-the-film-exchange-building-and-the-story-youve-not-been-told/article/3865681)

This is my point this is not a new issue. The maps 3 subcommittee and the council already looked at this.

This is my point this is not a new issue. The maps 3 subcommittee and the council already looked at this.

Then explain to us what came of that...

Given that this thread dates to 2013, I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks it's a new issue.

Then explain to us what came of that...

They decided they liked the park plans and decided to demo this building.

1137711378

Next they'll be after these historic bungalows! I kid, I kid. But it Could have made a COOL LOOKING pavilion. The top floor would be useless unless you added elevators. Just because it's historic doesn't exempt it from code. I fear it would be more subject to vandalism & vagrancy over something designed to be integral into the park however. And the brick will never be blonde again. I spent some time there as a kid in the 80's (btw it operated way past '84 as the kitchen and worship area, and I remember upstairs being converted to overnighters, drifters, the mentally ill.) so not much nostalgia there for me personally.

I've worked around development projects that go through many, many redesigns and renderings that the public never get to see, so you can't always look at a 4 year old proposal and think "this is it, game over man." They sure as hell have to keep them secret to avoid the sh@tstorm from people like us on this board ;) Those who like it the way it is/was/or the way they think it should be. The park subcommittee seem to have been trying their best to make compromises and convince those with more authority to get the best plan for the final product and budget. Always the budget, and with regard to budget, unknowns like this terrify/halt the process of design by committee.

As much as we all hate it, it's too often that the man in the room with the most power has the least knowledge or passion.

Is there a video of the committee meeting posted online somewhere? I'd like to see Bradley Wynn's presentation and the conversation between the ddrc and the maps 3 people.

They decided they liked the park plans and decided to demo this building.

The point is that the park planner never considered, nor maybe was even asked about, using the building.

Film Exchange Fate: The Oklahoma City Downtown Design Review Committee recommended to APPROVE TO DEMOLISH the Film Exchange building.

Of course they did.

The demolition approval rate by the DDRC remains near 100%.

At least they toured this one prior to determining it's fate.

This committee is a sham.

Of course they did.

The demolition approval rate by the DDRC remains near 100%.

How can we trust those who care nothing of our past with the city of our future?

Why do they not care about preservation?

How can we trust those who care nothing of our past with the city of our future?

Why do they not care about preservation?

Here we go with the weekly self loathing session. If they tear down FNC get back with me.

Here we go with the weekly self loathing session. If they tear down FNC get back with me.

It's not self loathing, it is a valid question. WHY do they not care?

It's not self loathing, it is a valid question. WHY do they not care?

Every building has a history. Should we keep them all?

Union Station is still standing, and as far as I know, will continue to stand as the park is built around it. That building has loads more character and appeal than the Film Exchange does.