To clarify my comment about the San Luis… no, it’s not Optimist’s fault that the San Luis was torn down. My point is, the loss of the San Luis for a surface parking lot has already diminished an otherwise intact and architecturally significant intersection. For that reason, whatever replaces the Optimist building (specifically designated as a high merit mcm building in the CWE mcm survey) should not just be “good enough”- it should be a signature building that upholds the architectural legacy of its high profile location. The current renderings of the apartment building was nothing special- it’s basically a derivative of the same “could be anywhere” template that can be found, well, anywhere.
That said, I also understand (and agree to some extent) that there’s a good case that adding density and tax $$$ should supersede sentimentality. However, the job of the preservation board is to protect the built environment— particularly contributing structures. Approving this demolition would’ve opened the door for the same thing to happen again and again and again. And we all know it WOULD happen again.
That said, I also understand (and agree to some extent) that there’s a good case that adding density and tax $$$ should supersede sentimentality. However, the job of the preservation board is to protect the built environment— particularly contributing structures. Approving this demolition would’ve opened the door for the same thing to happen again and again and again. And we all know it WOULD happen again.
