The money for demolision. Who do you think is going to pay for it? The very taxpapers you are trying to protect. And to DebDupe, I was talking about the crap you are saying, not what the “Freinds” are saying.
To be honest I don’t believe either side in this debate. I think the people to save the theater don’t have as much support or money as they claim. I defenetly don’t believe the people against saving the theater. They have used the same old claims over and over and over. Then they tell us that we shouldn’t believe what the “Freinds” tell us.
Challenger, as Rick has said, the minimum age for a building being listed is 50. I know of several buildings that have had the age limit waived. The Fox Theatre in St. Louis was listed in 1976, when it was 47. I even know of one building that was only 30 when listed. As to Life’s too short’s question, listing on the National Register means nothing. There is no form of protection.
I hope that someone in the community will bipass the “Freinds” and recommend that the library be allowed to restore the building. They could keep much of the interior intact. The auditorium could be restored and used as the main room, with bookshelfs and tables instead of rows of seats. I doubt that this theater will ever be used as a theater again. I hope the “Freinds” realize that the best chance this theater has is to be reused as the library. Considering how the “Freinds” have acted towards the council, though, it might be best for this theater’s future if they just stay out of the debate.
I think that if it is possible the theater should be incorporated into a new library. Even if it is only the facade and marquee, that would still give the feel of the old building. And if anything can be saved from the interior, then those objects can be placed in the library.
I have to agree Dupage Dude. It seems to me that the “Friends” seem badly managed. Calling the council memebers names will only turn them against you and make them unwilling to ever listen to you. A referendum should be held, to prove to those that say the theater has no support wrong. I don’t believe that the people of the city want to see the theater fall, as some on this site have said.
Deb, you are right. A non-binding referendum won’t do any good. The city will just ignore it and go on with there plan. I have seen places use non-binding referendums and they have little effect on what a government decides.
Challenger, I’m sorry. Maybe the village isn’t rushing. But why the big push for the city to demolish it? Why not let a private developer and save the city the money?
Also I still cannot understand the rush to demolision. If this is such a desirable site, let a private developer demolish the theater and save the taxpayers money. But it seems to me that the people for demolision have no problems spending money on demolision. I just hope they realize that this theater is probably full of asbestos and would be very costly to demolish.
Challenger, what is wrong with the children of town signing the petition. These children will grow up in town and if the theater is demolished, they will probably look back and regret what their city has done. Also, you said that the “Friends have raised only $1200 in six years. If I remeber the "Freinds” is only about 3 years old, so you must have them confused with another group.
Fiscal, what good would it do to tear it down now? Why don’t you support a referendum to demolish the theater, since that would take tax dollars too. Or better yet, but the site up for sale and let a private business tear it down, since the anti-theater supports don’t want to spend the city’s money.
Challenger, I think that that is what worries you. You are afraid that once restoration starts, the citizens of the city will want it finished, and the city will pay some of the costs. Nothing says the city has to finish, but once the theater gets close to finished, citizens won’t want to see it destroyed. Work must take place in order for more money to come in.
Challenger, give up on that $1200 thing. It is clear to me that there are two different groups that have tried and you seem stuck on one of these groups. How do you know how much money they have? Do you run the bank the money is in? Also, why do you keep saying that if restoration fails, the city is stuck paying? If restoration fails, the city can go ahead and demolish this theater. They would have no reason to finish restoration. Also, while I agree promised money is no certainty, it is better than nothing. No one is going to donate money to this project with the demolishion order from the council.
The city should just support the project, but offer no financial support. How hard would that be? If no money if promised, no has to be given. If the theater is not fixed, the city can demolish it. I have watched this exact thing happen in a town next to me. A man wanted to restore a theater, but the city wanted it demolished. The took the man to court so much, he had no time to restore it. No one was willing to give money to a project the city clearly didn’t want to support. It is sad this is happening here.
Doesn’t have anything to do with this theater, but thought you might find it interesting to know that the Rapp brothers where born and raise in Carbondale. There father was the main construction contractor in town, and actually built several of his sons' early designs in the city.
Ok, thanks for the correction. If you actually look into Chicago’s landmark laws, a building can be demolished if the owner says it is too much of a finacial burden.
I see in my crystal ball the city one day regretting their decision. This could be many years from now, but I promise you, it will happen.
ok, so mean demolition with a “T”. Wish you had corrected me earlier.
So spending TIF dollars for demolision is ok, but not to save the theater. You guys make absolutly no sense!
The money for demolision. Who do you think is going to pay for it? The very taxpapers you are trying to protect. And to DebDupe, I was talking about the crap you are saying, not what the “Freinds” are saying.
Oh and by the way, won’t the demolision literally be throwing money away?
Oh and by the way, won’t the demolishion literally be throwing money away?
DebDupe, why don’t you go on a site for people that want to here that crap?
There was an article in the paper today that a marquee restoration drive is underway.
To be honest I don’t believe either side in this debate. I think the people to save the theater don’t have as much support or money as they claim. I defenetly don’t believe the people against saving the theater. They have used the same old claims over and over and over. Then they tell us that we shouldn’t believe what the “Freinds” tell us.
Challenger, as Rick has said, the minimum age for a building being listed is 50. I know of several buildings that have had the age limit waived. The Fox Theatre in St. Louis was listed in 1976, when it was 47. I even know of one building that was only 30 when listed. As to Life’s too short’s question, listing on the National Register means nothing. There is no form of protection.
I hope that someone in the community will bipass the “Freinds” and recommend that the library be allowed to restore the building. They could keep much of the interior intact. The auditorium could be restored and used as the main room, with bookshelfs and tables instead of rows of seats. I doubt that this theater will ever be used as a theater again. I hope the “Freinds” realize that the best chance this theater has is to be reused as the library. Considering how the “Freinds” have acted towards the council, though, it might be best for this theater’s future if they just stay out of the debate.
I think that if it is possible the theater should be incorporated into a new library. Even if it is only the facade and marquee, that would still give the feel of the old building. And if anything can be saved from the interior, then those objects can be placed in the library.
I would still like someone to answer my question. Why the push for the city to demolish the theater and not a private developer?
I have to agree Dupage Dude. It seems to me that the “Friends” seem badly managed. Calling the council memebers names will only turn them against you and make them unwilling to ever listen to you. A referendum should be held, to prove to those that say the theater has no support wrong. I don’t believe that the people of the city want to see the theater fall, as some on this site have said.
Deb, you are right. A non-binding referendum won’t do any good. The city will just ignore it and go on with there plan. I have seen places use non-binding referendums and they have little effect on what a government decides.
Challenger, I’m sorry. Maybe the village isn’t rushing. But why the big push for the city to demolish it? Why not let a private developer and save the city the money?
Also I still cannot understand the rush to demolision. If this is such a desirable site, let a private developer demolish the theater and save the taxpayers money. But it seems to me that the people for demolision have no problems spending money on demolision. I just hope they realize that this theater is probably full of asbestos and would be very costly to demolish.
Challenger, what is wrong with the children of town signing the petition. These children will grow up in town and if the theater is demolished, they will probably look back and regret what their city has done. Also, you said that the “Friends have raised only $1200 in six years. If I remeber the "Freinds” is only about 3 years old, so you must have them confused with another group.
Fiscal, what good would it do to tear it down now? Why don’t you support a referendum to demolish the theater, since that would take tax dollars too. Or better yet, but the site up for sale and let a private business tear it down, since the anti-theater supports don’t want to spend the city’s money.
Challenger, I think that that is what worries you. You are afraid that once restoration starts, the citizens of the city will want it finished, and the city will pay some of the costs. Nothing says the city has to finish, but once the theater gets close to finished, citizens won’t want to see it destroyed. Work must take place in order for more money to come in.
Challenger, give up on that $1200 thing. It is clear to me that there are two different groups that have tried and you seem stuck on one of these groups. How do you know how much money they have? Do you run the bank the money is in? Also, why do you keep saying that if restoration fails, the city is stuck paying? If restoration fails, the city can go ahead and demolish this theater. They would have no reason to finish restoration. Also, while I agree promised money is no certainty, it is better than nothing. No one is going to donate money to this project with the demolishion order from the council.
The city should just support the project, but offer no financial support. How hard would that be? If no money if promised, no has to be given. If the theater is not fixed, the city can demolish it. I have watched this exact thing happen in a town next to me. A man wanted to restore a theater, but the city wanted it demolished. The took the man to court so much, he had no time to restore it. No one was willing to give money to a project the city clearly didn’t want to support. It is sad this is happening here.
Doesn’t have anything to do with this theater, but thought you might find it interesting to know that the Rapp brothers where born and raise in Carbondale. There father was the main construction contractor in town, and actually built several of his sons' early designs in the city.
Ok, thanks for the correction. If you actually look into Chicago’s landmark laws, a building can be demolished if the owner says it is too much of a finacial burden.
I believe this theater is a Chicago city landmark. Unfortunely that doesn’t mean much in Chicago.