Print Page | Close Window

Someone explain the Fascination with the Old

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2924
Printed Date: May 20 2024 at 7:49am


Topic: Someone explain the Fascination with the Old
Posted By: Pacman
Subject: Someone explain the Fascination with the Old
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 7:30am

$1M to demolish buildings? Council members question decision

By http://www.ohio-share.coxnewsweb.com/incoming/ryan-gauthier-305962.html - Ryan Gauthier , Staff Writer
Updated 7:10 AM Tuesday, April 20, 2010

MIDDLETOWN — Council members not in office when the group declared its intent to raze the downtown parking garage seem unsure about supporting the project.

A pair of ordinances securing nearly $1 million in financing and authorizing the demolition of the parking garage and construction of a new surface lot will come before council for debate tonight, April 20, though members won’t vote on the matter until early next month. The Swallen’s building, which adjoins the parking garage, is tentatively included in the demolition proposal.

=============================================================================
 
Someone explain the fascination with keeping these old unused buildings downtown.  The building and Garage over the next 10 yrs. is going to cost more to maintain then to tear it down.  $957k to tear it down, with inflation and escalating utility cost, insurance, maintenance it will cost over $1 Mil to keep it.  Someone explain why keep it?
 
This is the same building the city couldn't give away for free a few years ago......nobody wanted it FOR FREE.
 
This is the same logic we see when the School Board does a survey saying we can basically build a new Middle School or rehab the Old High School for the same amount and people chose to rehab the old High School.  WHAT re-hab over new.  People Logic needs to dictate what actions we take not sentiment.
 
Tear them down and lets move on.


Replies:
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 8:39am
Kind of like the mall that was costing $500k a year to maintain.
 
We can sit back and say it never should have been built  But the reality is, it was.  And it needed to go.  Just like the parking garage and Swallens--which is nothing more than a hunk of unattractive concrete. 

Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 8:50am
SWohio is correct.
 
As mentioned at MJ, why not make this area the dog park?
Brings people down there who otherwise wouldn't go there.
Manchester guests can walk their pets.
Why continue to expensively maintain properties that have no use or value?
 
Mr.Picard makes a good point, however git er dun!

Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 9:02am
the argument that "we could use that $1 million for something else" is kind of ridiculous.  Sure, I could avoid seeing my dentist and use that money to buy something more useful -- repairs on house, tools, etc.  But at what cost?  You're just avoiding paying the piper later on.

Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 9:02am
I guess I would like to see the numbers for why it costs $90k a year to maintain the garage.  I don't doubt them but want to see some proof.

Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 9:49am

The thing that grips me about this ordeal is this:

1.)    At the time of the mall’s demise, the parking garage was bad shape and was an expense to the city

2.)    The city owned Swallens, which at the time was vacant

3.)    The city was presented several options for the mall removal

a.       Keeping the parking garage and making Broad one-way

b.      Removing the parking garage and opening Broad to two-way traffic

c.       And the third option I believe was to keep that portion of Broad Street covered

4.)    In the end the city selected option a.) and went to the expense of relocating and rebuilding the elevator for the garage.  The city also went to the expense of redoing the Swallens storefront (which had no pre-mall storefront because it was a post mall building)

5.)    The mall project was completed in 2003

6.)    It’s now 2010, and had the decision to remove the garage as part of the mall project not only would Broad Street accommodate two way traffic, but the thing would almost be paid for.

Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Apr 20 2010 at 10:36am
right on SWOhio
you nailed this one
The high price of doing nothing long-term rears it's ugly head
Councils/Commissions passing the buck


Print Page | Close Window