Re: New Building

[Marc <cram3813@uidaho.edu>]

At 11:10 AM 11/7/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I agree with Ellen, Trouble is, no one in charge really cares or their
>perception is that no one cares. The overriding concern is that no one can
>tell you what to do with your property. That's fine if you want to live in a
>hodge-podge of junk. Without zoning ordinances, you are going to have a mess
>and that's what we're getting. Pretty soon it will be too late. I predicted
>the new building on Main Street would be a tasteless disasaster, and it is.
>Why am I not surprised? Wake up folks, before it's too late. We do need
>zoning ordinances, and we need them now. Apparently we need to give people
>some incentive to create a harmonious, tasteful, architecturally pleasing
>environment.
>

And you are what?  The Esthetics Police?  Let's regulate taste and style now?

Actually, I haven't seen the building for about a week.  It was just framed
in then--no skin.  How it will end up, I don't know.  But I am sure it will
look kind of like a building.  It will probably end up (in my opinion) much
better than the old building did, no matter how they build it.  

But the second we start regulating "beauty" we are in a bunch of trouble.
You probably wouldn't want me on the committee.  There are plenty of ugly
buildings out there and some of them are even historical buildings.  Being
old does not make it attractive.  

How about the castle?  Really now--don't you know that look went out 100's
of years ago?  Or the new bank in the mall parking lot.  Now there's ugly!
I like the ex-bank that has the angled roof across from where the Cap was.
Horribly inefficient and probably a nightmare for roof upkeep, but pretty
cool looking.  I also love round buildings.  But economically, they are
losers to build.  The truth of the matter is that boards are straight and
plywood is flat.  So even though I like them, I would probably build an
ugly rectangular one instead.  

Marc
Stylish in everything