[Winona Online Democracy]
On the basis of a cost-benefit analysis we would not preserve any old
buildings. None of them would pass the test. Is there nothing else to
consider?
Duane M. Peterson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 12:16 PM
Subject: [Winona] Court House
> [Winona Online Democracy]
>
>
> While I agree with many of you who favor restoring the court house, I see
> one issue which needs to be much more thoroughly addressed: public
> perception of the well known analysis of cost vs. benefit. Many cities
and
> towns around the U.S. are addressing preservation issues just like ours,
and
> one of the key features in gathering support for restoration and
renovation
> is the belief that the building will continue to actively serve the needs
of
> the community.
>
> Old buildings tend to be very expensive to operate. They are often poorly
> insulated. They often develop electrical, plumbing and heating problems
> which need to be repaired. They tend to have inefficient floorplans
leading
> to wasted space. Window and door openings are often of mixed and
> nonstandard sizes so replacement is much more expensive. Plus, they
> eventually need new roofs, tuckpointing, parking lot maintenance, etc.
just
> like any other building.
>
> This expense is supported only in communities where the daily function of
> the building is seen to justify it. Few people are willing to pay to
> maintain a building with just sits there and looks pretty, or which people
> find inconvenient to use (certainly a problem with our courthouse before
the
> recent water damage).
>
> I would hazard a guess that a majority of people now living in Winona are
> transplants like me, who have no psychological attachment to that building
> and no memory of when it was highly used: almost all of my county business
> since I moved here has been conducted in the annex, plaza building, or
> somewhere else. The old building primarily housed the courts (to which
few
> people went unless they had to); commissions which few people even KNOW
> about, much less do business with; and offices such as the county assessor
> which most of us will never deal with in person.
>
> I thoroughly understand the necessity of those commissions and offices,
but
> let's face it: that type of use just won't cut it in the world of public
> opinion. Many other wonderful old buildings in Winona are gone because
the
> preservation efforts focussed on appearance rather than function.
>
> So, here is our challenge if we wish to preserve that building: we must
> swing the cost:benefit ratio strongly to the right, and THIS MUST BE
OBVIOUS
> TO THE PUBLIC. Unless we can come up with a design which eliminates
> hard-to-find offices and gets hundreds or thousands of people (not
counting
> employees) back into that building every day, year round, for ROUTINE
> business, we are doomed to fail because it will be seen as "not worth the
> expense". So far, we haven't heard this type of analysis from the various
> groups discussing this issue - most of what the public hears seems to
focus
> on restoring the building to the limited public flow it had before.
That's
> a big mistake.
>
> Ed Thompson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ed's witty saying for this week:
> "Madness takes it's toll; please have exact change"
>
>
> ----------------
> This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
> Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or
unsubscribe.
> Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
> Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
> Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
