I’ve long had an interest in the value of architectural design within the context of good urban design. I offer the following ideas as a possible beginning of a resolution for the CentrePointe Development, for the consideration of the Webbs and everyone else interested in the design proposal:1. Retain the design of the Hotel and the Condominium tower as is, except as modified below.
2. Jettison the 4-story base buildings at the perimeter of the Webb’s properties (the perimeter of the block).
3. Bisect the block with a new street, north-south, perpendicular to Main, connecting Main and Vine Streets through the center of the block. Name this new street in honor of the World Equestrian Games.
4. Rotate the Hotel and Condominium tower 90 degrees so that the hotel faces this new street that divides the block in half. This provides better access to the hotel.
5. Begin construction of the hotel and condominium tower immediately, to allow for occupancy prior to the 2010 games.
6. Retain and renovate the historic buildings on the west end of the block (The Dame, Busters, Rosenbergs). The hotel and condominium tower will be built behind these existing buildings, will not require their demolition, and will face primarily the new street bisecting the block.
7. Excavate under the new proposed location of the hotel and condo tower, under the new street, and under the entire eastern half of the block (the other side of the new street), for underground parking.
8. Initiate an international design competition for the eastern half of the block, on the eastern side of the new street. Design proposals for the eastern half of the block can proceed on their own schedule without delaying the immediate commencement of renovation of the historic buildings on the western half of the block and the immediate commencement of construction of the new hotel and the new condo tower.
I’m no architect, but this seems like an intriguing compromise and a good start to a broader discussion about CentrePointe’s design.
What do you think?
April 13, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The PDF file for download is a PDF file that includes a 3D model that you can spin around (and walk through) in the free adobe acrobat reader, version 8.
Try spinning it around. and then go to the view pull down window (views) and pick the street level view (MAIN UPPER CRNR). Then walk around.
The walking feet button is hidden by default in acrobat but you can find it by going in acrobat to edit>preferences>3D>consolidate tools on the 3D toolbar.
With that turned on then you will see a walking feet button under the spin button. When walking you can move in any direction dragging the mouse with the left button. If you use the ctrl key while doing that you can tilt your view up or down.
April 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Rob “Solomon” Snyder, this is one of the most interesting solutions I have seen put forth. I like taking out Upper as a service street for the complex. The new street can address that in some discrete fashion. I also like having the tower in the middle of the block, rather than dominating Main; and I have to say its shape is more interesting to me than the current proposal. That this approach also keeps the existing buildings, and allows for a design competition on the Limestone side gives hope for a second interesting signature building. This also serves to break up the development from one giant solution to two smaller - but still significant - projects.
Putting the parking completely underground and not having to reduce the size of Phoenix Park makes a lot of sense. Parks are difficult to make work, and Phoenix Park works. So it would be good to not change its whole dynamic.
April 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm
My plan included the demolition of the buildings fronting Limestone. This provides a developer with two critical corners that are very much visible, and preserves the majority of the historic structures.
April 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Neat idea. That street through the middle is clever. That would provide a much more peaceful entrance to the hotel. Perhaps they could make it wide enough to host some of the Farmer’s Market. On the other half of the block they could put the parking garage hidden by smaller businesses that run along the sidewalk.
April 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I think a street bisecting the block defeats the purpose of having a complete streetscape along Main, Limestone, Upper or Vine Street. That kind of a scheme seems to want to internalize and potentially hide experiences, shops, storefronts, etc. The potential for excitement and engagement is on the streets and sidewalks that border the roads that get the most traffic (on foot and vehicular).
The good thing is that this starts to show people what else could be there, it puts some other images that people can look at and respond, because all we’ve had to go off of is the same CentrePointe rendering. I would encourage this blog, as well as other local media, to show the community what examples around the country and world have done in similar contexts (new infill well integrated with existing historical buildings). I think people would like to learn about what the possibilities could be.
April 14, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Mike. This scheme supports the steet life of all the other steets, and adds another street for even more streetscape.
April 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Walk around in any great city, SanFrancisco comes to mind. All the steets are activated. Blocks need not be too large. Splitting this large block into 2 still good sized blocks will activate the steet life around all the sides and through the middle.
April 14, 2008 at 7:21 pm
After seeing this image of an alternative CenterPoint, I do hope Graham Pohl will submit an alternative.
April 14, 2008 at 7:27 pm
It’s the same building as proposed except the base 4 stories are removed. The entire hotel and condo tower is identical to the original proposal, only rotated on the site.
Of course, I showed this only in rough sketch form representing the overall mass, not having time or a reason to draw it in any greater detail, especially since, as I said, it is important to respect the Webb’s most schedule-critical project elements, the hotel and the condo tower and I propose keeping those exactly as they had been proposed.
April 14, 2008 at 8:11 pm
bfrn, go to graham pohl’s website (pohl rosa pohl)- he doesn’t do buildings like this. he primarily does interior design. in fact, his commercial accomplishments actually include the johns running shop at lex green which was build by the webb companies, ironically enough. the fact that the HL allowed him to write an editorial as an “expert” voice is a complete sham but apropos.
April 14, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Thank Goodness! Rob, I knew that you would elect to save that historic of historic Rite Aid bulding. That building tells me much about the history of Lexington.
April 14, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I didn’t elect to save it or not to save it. It is in the area designated for further design. The results of further design investigations are yet to be known.
What is known is that the original facade of the rite aid building is rather attractive and likely to be intact for the most part underneath the ugly cover of the metal panel.
Whether this means it should be preserved or not remains to be seen. A decision on that can be deferred until after the primary elements of the overall project already get underway.
April 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm
This alternative will cost the city more than the $70 million of the TIF asked for. A new street will remove land from the tax base and necessitate two new traffic signals and continued maintenance from the city coffers. Whether it is one way or two, it will still need to be wide enough for the service vehicles to get to the service entrances. The parking structure which would have been paid for by the TIF is now built by the city at a substantial cost, and we all know what the city built structures look like.
The alternative shown is on the Rosenberg part of the block and not on the Webb Co. property, and if the complaint is with the Webb proposal then you’re going about it all wrong.
April 14, 2008 at 9:43 pm
The proposal by the Webbs covers the entire block from edge to edge including the Rosenberg property which had been proposed for demolition along with the Dame and all the otherr buildings on the entire block.
The cost of 2 traffic lights is inconsequential. The relative TIF impact of an underground garage with a street and some buildings on top of it versus an underground garage with only buildings on top of it would need to by analyzed.
April 14, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Do any of you really believe that any of the old buildings could withstand the required blasting to dig the underground parking? These buildings are not just past their prime, they are beyond the tipping point where rehabilitation could make them profitable. How is one to recoup the cost to restore these buildings?
April 14, 2008 at 10:27 pm
It is an absolute certaintly that if the owner says it is impossible, then it is impossible.
The converse is also true. If the owner instructs his people to find a way, then they will find a way.
This is, as it always has been, and always shall be.
April 14, 2008 at 10:37 pm
A development like this will create property of higher value, earn the owner a greater return, and serve the city better by creating higher value property (larger tax base) and a more user friendly streetscape that benefits residents and visitors alike.
April 14, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Rob, I like your design. I also like the Webb’s proposal. But I don’t own the buildings and I’m not risking any of my money in the development. I also don’t know anything about the various considerations that likely went into the design, such as the agreement with the Marriot or the needs of the potential tennants. This puts me in the same shoes as Mr. Pohl, the Vice Mayor, UK’s Dean of Architecture, and every other critic of the proposal’s design, except that I don’t think my opinion is more important than the opinion of the building’s owners. If developers can’t design their own developments, they won’t get built. I understand that would be a welcome result for some people, but it will do nothing for the economic growth of this city.
April 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Martin, I don’t think that that is the way this particular project will turn out. The consultant design team that produced this particular design is in the business of creating designs. It is extraordinarily uncommon for any design proposal from any design firm to be accepted on the first try or even after the first several, especially on a project as large and complex as this, needing as it does to satisfy so many diverse requirements, beginning with the client’s business objectives.
I believe it truly is the Webb Company’s intent to deliver the best possible project it can, and in that light it seems probable to me that the Webbs will entertain ideas that can alter the outcome for the better (they have already said so). And when studying ideas that can improve the outcome, what matters is the merit of the idea(s), not where they came from. They can come from the imagination of the owner, or the design team, or from public participation, or from outer space. It doesn’t matter.
What matters is that the owner and his designers study ideas and continuously incorporate the best of the ideas that attract themselves to their project, and be willing to let go of the weaker ideas and the weaker elements of their design proposal, for the sake of moving forward to the best attainable result.
April 14, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Further, the idea I proposed considers the schedule and investor commitments that Mr. Webb identified on this blog including the agreements with the Marriott.
This proposal intends to make it easier and more expedient for the Webbs to honor those commitments by giving the Webbs the green light to proceed as soon as possible with their most investor and schedule-critical project elements (the hotel and tower) thus possibly removing their perceived obstacles to preservation.
It also jettisons the most poorly designed and least desirable elements of their project: the 4-story base buildings, which I guess are the most speculative in the project mix, and that most certainly are the most contentious. Removing these removes also the reason for public objection to the project.
April 15, 2008 at 3:24 am
CentrePointe, if built, will be the single biggest blunder downtown Lexington has ever seen. The Webb’s are clueless when it comes to smart development. Do yourself a favor and check out that block on almost any given weekend night of the year and see what a thriving nightlife looks like.
April 15, 2008 at 9:38 am
I think this idea works, I think the idea of putting a above ground parking garage in the middle of the block with a tower on top and shorter buildings around the edges, preserving the current historic ones works. I’m sure there are other ideas that work. What doesn’t work is the current Webb proposal for CenterPointe. Lexington, just say No. In the long run, both the Webbs and Lexington will be better off.
April 15, 2008 at 9:39 am
Rob,
In my view, your alternative design betrays the fact that you have never actually designed a project of this nature. It looks terrible! The couple of hours you spent on your home computer could have been better spent doing your homework regarding the financial needs of a project this size. Your design speaks volumes about your inexperience as an architect. You have no idea what it takes to get a new street approved and you obviously do not have a clue about the sub-street structures on that block. This appears to be nothing more than an opportunity to post an erroneous resume in the hopes of improving your personal position in life.
April 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Rob, there are many other reasons that people disapprove of this project that are far removed from the four-story base. Furthermore, the alternate design is just a sketch — nothing concrete, nothing that will hold up if it is actually brought forth seriously.
April 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Sherman,
Are you saying that one should begin with a concrete complete project and then work backward from their to a sketch of an idea?
April 15, 2008 at 5:51 pm
That’s funny Tim. the anonymous drive-by invalidator!
I know plenty about what it takes to do a project like this (although I am not an architect). The first thing it requires is leadership that takes energy voids like yourself off of the project.
I’ve posted no resume and I have used my full name because to me it makes no sense walking around in public wearing a mask.
I have nothing personal to gain from trying to help opposing sides in this debate find common ground and move forward with what is most important to each side, and I have no need to improve my position in life. I have already made a name for myself and I get all the satisfaction (and renumeration) I need from what I do.
Perhaps you should attempt to do the same.
April 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm
As far as I can tell, most people would have no objection to the hotel and tower if the existing historic buildings could be preserved.
The 4 story base buildings are the reason the existing buildings must be demolished (since they occupy the same space).
Without the base buildings, the hotel and tower can be built, and the significant existing buildings can remain.
I know this must sound dissappointing to everyone who really prefers just the continual fight.
April 15, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Tim,
On one part of this blog you chastise me for merely asking if K-Rock worked for the Webbs and on this part of the site, you are being far rudder and insulting to Rob, who has put forth this proposal in good faith using his real name, hoping it would facilitate discussion and compromise. With all do respect, I think you are being a hypocrite. Rob, I wouldn’t worry to much about what Tim says, both him and K-Rock are probably blogging for the Webbs.
April 15, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Thanks Mark.
I doubt though that these guys work for the Webbs.
Dudley Webb posts here himself, identifying himself with his full name, and nothing he says falls short of intelligent, fair, open, and honest discussion.
These guys are nothing of the sort.
April 15, 2008 at 10:07 pm
ok my big secret is out. i do get paid by the webbs for blogging- 35 cents/blog entry. i think it is a pretty good deal but i told them i would just like some of the bricks from the dame instead so i could build a brick fireplace in my home. the truth is, mark, you are the one who is obviously desperate for an argument. is it really that hard to accept that someone might not agree with you? these blogsites are just completely devoid of sense and reason and certainly not the voice of the silent majority.
April 16, 2008 at 8:50 am
K-Rock,
I guess you get what you pay for. At 35 cents an entry, Mr. Webb is overpaying.
April 16, 2008 at 10:30 am
Rob,
In your response you say “I know plenty about what it takes to do a project like this (although I am not an architect”. If that is true, perhaps you are correct that my acidic response was inappropriate. Although you state that you have made a name for yourself, I would think that it would go along way with those that don’t know your reputation to advise the uninformed, like myself, exactly what experience you have with projects like this. You could give examples of construction projects where you have been a project manager or perhaps you could tell us what projects you are working on right now. I’m sure that would give more creedence to your current proposal. How about that?
April 16, 2008 at 10:38 am
Rob,
No. I stated that the sketch proposed above was nothing more than that, a sketch. An idea. Something to toss around to generate further ideas and conversation. One should start with this — and work their way up to a completed project. But the public and even the tenants on the block, were left in the dark for 18 months — to the contrary of Mr. Webb who has stated that the time for major changes was all but over because it was “too far” along in the process.
I live across the street from the proposed development and know many of the owners and managers on the block. And when the proposal hit the newsstand only a little while back, they were very much surprised at the design and scale of the tower — the cumulation of 18 months of rumors.
April 16, 2008 at 9:24 pm
There does not appear to be a businessman among you. This is a 250 million dollar project for God’s sake. One does not spend that amount of money without a solid plan to get a fair return on the investment. Do you think that Mr. Webb and associates could make this investment and continue to accept the same level of rent being paid by the current occupants? Do you foresee the current occupants paying the rent at a level that would support the investment? Can you imagine anyone willing to pay the required level of rent to be housed in a eyesore like the building occupied by the Dame or any of the other historic buildings?
This concept is about taking Lexington into the future but you seem to be so strongly tied to the past that you can’t see the true value of the current property verses the value of the proposed design.
Pull your head out. besides seeing better you might fine the fresh air clears your brains.
April 16, 2008 at 10:54 pm
If you read the Wall Street Journal every day, you will read over and over how people in charge squander billions on ventures that defy common sense - in foresight as well as in hindsight. The resolve to spend hundreds of millions of dollars does not necessarily guarantee that the spender has thought everything through. They are humans, and humans that have elected to design their solution in a public input vacuum.
Market studies are forecasts. At best they are an educated guesses I will wager that these are no better than 50% in their accuracy. I will also wager that anyone can pay for a marketing study to prove anything they want to prove - especially when there are a lot of unknown variables.
But, if we work at it a little, we can have both - the historic old buildings and the new project. When so many people chose one side or the other, it is time to figure out how to find a solution that satisfies the requirements of both sides. I don’t know if Rob Snyder’s plan is the ultimate or not, but it is a great example of the creative thinking that is required.
We need to be focused on how to make it work for all sides.
April 16, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Where Bill are those historic old buildings on this block? A majority of our city is trying to figure this out. Is the Rite Aid building historic? Is the House of Mercy Historic? What about the Mad Hatter building? Is the Busters building historic? Any others? I think not.
April 16, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Ugday: Yeah, great idea lets hope the rent rate is sky high so they can keep the current locally owned, deadbeat, mom and pop businesses out of there.
April 17, 2008 at 9:39 am
Rob,
Still waiting for some info to back your claims. Help me believe.
April 17, 2008 at 9:11 pm
All of the buildings but 1 or 2 meet the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s requirements for being list on the National Register of Historic Properties. This is according to the State’s Heritage Council.
April 17, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Bill,
There is still one requirement that is not met for inclusion on the National Register. Can you tell me what that is? Anybody? Think real hard now.
April 18, 2008 at 9:12 am
Rob,
I have provided an opportunity to you to back up your claims about your knowledge, experience and reputation within the community. You have chosen not to respond to the people of Lexington, like me, who have never heard of you. This silence speaks volumes about the validity of your concept. Back to the drawing board Rob.
While I am at it, I want to comment about Tom Eblen’s method of reporting/commenting/posting or however you want to characterize it. Tom implies in this article that Rob is an architect. He attempts to give this concept validity by not telling the whole truth. You see, the truth is, Rob has a degree in architecture, which was mentioned to give both the concept and Rob some validity on this issue. However it is not the “whole truth” because Rob is not an architect. In fact, we don’t know what Rob does that would give any creedence or an ounce of credibility to this concept. Rob chose to print his whole name but not anyting else that would allow citizens looking at these posts to determine if his concept has any merit? What projects has Rob been associated with? Eblen doesn’t care. Tom is experienced in presenting the facts only as he wants them to be seen, not as they should be seen.
April 21, 2008 at 12:33 am
Rob,
I see that you are a systems application engineer at Bentley Systems Inc. according to Linkedin.com. From what I see, your firm designs software for architects to use when creating projects. I assume that you used that software to create your masterpiece. Moving around software code is not the same as constructing a building in my book though. I found nothing on actual projects you led.
April 22, 2008 at 8:54 am
Tim, I’ve been out of town, working. I work for a living.
I don’t believe you have provided an opportunity to anyone to do anything. You’ve just been rude and anonymous.
I posted an idea for anyone to consider. You’ve not considered it. Instead you’ve engaged in anonymous tear-down.
The idea has nothing to do with me. Anyone could come up with this idea or hundereds of others.
Responsible people consider ideas and evaluate them on their merits, not on the qualifications of the person they come from.
No matter what my qualifications are, people like yourself will find reasons to exclude based on your own quest to justify your own preconceived notions which you are unwilling to challenge, to your own detriment.
You appear to be pretty much locked in.
Fine, that’s no concern of mine.
Yes it is true, you found my linked-in profile, which certainly was not hidden and most people around here already know me anyway. I work for a software developer, and prior to that I worked at several architecture firms over the last 12 years and prior to that I earned an architecture degree from UK. As I stated before above, I am not an architect..
What are you and what are your qualifications? I ask only in turn the same as you asked.
Please identify yourself, and more importantly, share with us your ideas for a successful development. Please state your qualifications, for general interest.
April 22, 2008 at 9:13 am
and Tim, hopefully you at least noticed that the idea I offered was intended to help this project move FORWARD rather than grinding to a halt because of entrenched uncompromising polarized mutual opposition of positions that need not be opposed.
Tim, the idea is quite simply that it is INDEED UTTERLY POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE that boths sides GET WHAT THEY WANT and that the result is a project that is BETTER in every way: better for the city, better for the residents, better for the tenants, better for visitors, better for our local past, present and future, better for the hotel, better for the developers, better for the bankers and other investors.
Just better all around Tim.
But if it goes your way, Tim, then we’ll just have exhausting, costly, wasteful, battling and a grinding down of the possibility of the project at all.
Qualified professionals who design for a living understand this. They are not rigid. They search for best solutions. They incorporate good ideas wherever they come from. They activate and encourage those around them instead of tearing them down. They seek to move projects forward toward the most optimal achievable results driven by clients’ business goals and the context within which the project exists.
I believe the Webbs will develop a better project than the one they currently proposed. I believe it will be better in every way, INCLUDING better for their bottom line.
April 22, 2008 at 9:31 am
Finally, as you correctly noticed, I work for Bentley Systems which develops software that enables architecture, engineering, construction and owner teams to collaborate duing the design, development, construction and occupancy of infrastructure projects in the building, civil, road and rail, government, utility, communications, and industrial and process plant industries.
Prior to that I worked on a lot of projects at several different firms. If you’d like to see a collection of images of some projects I’ve worked on look here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gringo_en_mexico/sets/72057594101368471/
April 22, 2008 at 9:50 am
And I’ll save you the trouble of further research about me ,Tim. While I had stated previously in this thread that I am not an architect, nevertheless, you credited yourself with “discovering” it.
Here’s some more discovery with which you can exclude me:
My father is Jewsih.
My Irish grandfather was an acloholic.
I’m married to a Mexican.
There you are my friend, have at it. There’s plenty more too I assure you.
April 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Rob,
So what I gather from this babble is that I’m right, you are a software developer. I do appreciate the fact that you point out “Responsible people consider ideas and evaluate them on their merits, not on the qualifications of the person they come from.” At lease you acknowledge you lack the qualifications necessary for a project like this. However, there are other points to this statement. Plenty of people on this blog have evaluated, and condemned, Centrepointe based upon Webb Companies involvment because of some contrived personal bias. They cite other projects, “new” money vs. “old money”, and the fact they were born in Eastern Kentucky in negative ways to in an attempt to cloud the overwhelming benefit this project would bring to downtown and Lexington as a whole. The other point that could be taken from that statement Rob is that you ain’t all there. I mean, evaluating a project on the merits includes evaluating the person or the firm that is proposing the project. The reputation of that individual and qualifications are what give the developer/financier/city council confidence that the project is sound. With the Webb Companies spearheading this project, we have this.
Rob, you also speak as if you have no agenda in proposing your alternative. Your allegiance to Preserve Lexington is present on the blogs where your survey response, years ago, reveals your feelings.
I have also responded to questions about anonymity on the most recent Preserve Lexington blog, so no need to go back into that. Finally, you spelled Jewish wrong.
April 24, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Rob,
I took a look at some of the “renderings” from the site you posted. Some of them look kind of cool in a techno exotic kind of way. However, these just appear merely to be computer concepts. Any of them actually built? Also, while they are kind of neat, I certaintly don’t think any of them compare to the current block issue? Bottom line, I don’t think they give any credibility to your proposal or insights on the current project.
April 24, 2008 at 10:54 pm
You’re a strange fellow, Tim-no-last-name-given.
Why would you presume that my “allegiance” (as you call it) to Preserve Lexington is secret and that therefore you’ve revealed it?
Of course I have an allegiance to Preserve Lexington, as does jsut about anyone with reasonably functioning faculties. Why should we systematically destroy our cultural and historic fabric unnecessarily, particularly when its inclusion makes for a stronger project.
I stipulate (since you need it spelled out) that I am NOT qualified to manage the design or construction of a building project.
What I have described and illustrated is that it is possible to have allegiance BOTH to Preserve Lexington AND to the Webb’s proposal; that it is possible to move forward with the critical elements of the Webb’s proposal AND to preserve and re-use some of the historic buildings.
This is an elementary idea. Understanding it requires only simple skills of observation, and it is immediately evident even to the casual observer.
And yet it remains utterly obscure to you,
I will not give up on my belief in your capacity to understand it though, Tim.
Of the 16 projects shown in the renderings, 9 of them are built. This establishes my point that first designs are not always accepted. Revisions are often demanded, from owners, from city councils, from bankers . . .
Let’s see something new learned from this and a new kind of development process that is open to ideas that improve the development.
Remaining, naively optimistic.
-Rob Snyder
April 25, 2008 at 11:01 am
Rob,
I would like to see the end product for the 9 that were built and how they were incorporated with regard to the surrounding architecture. Can you provide some information about where these are, or final photos or websites where I can find them? I’m not going to use this information to flame anyone or make an argument about how these types of structures would not fit here because I know you provided this information because I wanted to know what you worked on and not for any other reason. I really am just interested in knowing where these are and how they fit in because I think they are kind of neat.
April 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Tim,
Do I understand you to be saying that because the Webbs and their architects have experience in building large-scale buildings, we are not to question them or their design - unless we also have that same or very similar experience? I am thinking that there are so many examples in so many areas where the “experts” turned out to be wrong or misguided.
April 25, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Bill,
No, I’m not saying that. I just think it is disingenuous to post an article like this with the implication that the submitter has more expertise in the area than he really does. That’s Tom Eblen’s methodology. When Rob came back with some very broad statements about his experience and reputation, I wanted to follow up on that, which blossomed into the discussion before you.
April 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Tim, please follow up with your last reply to Bill, with at least a little bit of inward reflection to balance the outward interpretations you’ve been making exclusively.
I think your impression of Tom Eblen’s writing, and of my experience are attirbutable more to your unique interpretation of what has been said here from the beginning than on actually what has been said.
I think Tom Eblen and I have been very clear, intentinoally precise, and simple, really, while you have tended toward exxageration, innuendo and misdirection.
April 25, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I’m really curious now Tim about you.
What kind of work do you do?
How old are you?
I’m guessing about 17, maybe less.
You certainly talk like a teenager, full of presumption.
Quick to assume and to jump to conclusions on incomplete infrormation. Not really capable of nuance. Tone deaf. Disinterested in listening. Uninterested in learning. Unaware of the purpose of compromise. Inexperienced. Unseasoned. Inconsiderate. concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others. Fast on the attack.
Do you believe it is possible (conceivable) to develop a great, and large, project on the CentrePointe site AND to preserve and re-use some of the historic buildings on the site?
I have been saying all along that, yes, it is.
What do you say? Yes, or no?
April 26, 2008 at 7:27 am
Rob,
Take your fantasies somewhere else.
April 26, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Loser.
April 26, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Q: Do you think it is possible (consceivable) to develop a great, and large, project on the CetnrePointe site AND to preserve some of the historic buildings on the site?
A: (Tim) Take your fantasies somewhere else.
You’ve lost credibility entirely now, what little you had, Tim. As I said already above. You’re not interested in discussion. You don’t care about listening. You don’t know the meaning of compromise. You know nothing about possiblity. Your approach in debate is to attack and tear down, and so it is no surprise that this is your approach to development projects too. Anything that didn’t come from you is worthless and so it should be torn down. A very sad world view. An extremeist position that is indefensible, uncultured, not saavy, and ultimately highly ineffective.
April 26, 2008 at 2:59 pm
http://www.slate.com/id/2189762/slideshow/2189793/
Check out two competing ideas for city development in this slide show (Dubai and Masdar)
http://www.masdaruae.com/text/v-files.aspx
Fantasy becoming reality here Tim, because of great minds thinking together collaboratively. We don’t get there from here by tearing each other down, Tim.
April 26, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Next you’ll say those people are stupid too. What about right here in Kentucky, Tim, where Alltech is building a bio-refinery to produce ehtanol from algae. Is that stupid fantasy too, Tim? http://alltech.safesecureblog.com/?p=38
April 26, 2008 at 3:43 pm
http://www.masdaruae.com/text/v-files.aspx
Reality: great minds thinking together collaboratively. We don’t get there from here by tearing each other down.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189762/slideshow/2189793/
Competing ideas for city development (Dubai and Masdar)
April 26, 2008 at 7:25 pm
That’s it Rob, let it all out. Feel better now?
April 26, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Sure. It’s great fun calling a loser a loser.
Tim, You have contributed absolutely nothing of value to this discussion, on any of these pages. You have contributed nothing that supports the Webb’s proposal as is, nor anything to move the conversation, Lexington, or the possibility of the project forward.
You’re a leach, simply a blood sucker. A waste of time. I was certainly right with my first impression: You’re an energy void, a black whole. You’re certainly wasting my energy, energy that now that you’ve SUCKED it away from me, I can never reclaim.
Its amusing to me though, an amusing distraction. It is a shame the world has too many people like you who contribute nothing, while belittle those who do.
You’re entirely self-satisfied aren’t you?
Are you going to answer my simple questions?
What kind of work do you do?
How old are you?
Do you believe a great project can be developed on this site AND that some of the historic buildings can be adaptively re-used.
I ask you to answer that last one again, since your last answer (take your fantasies somewhere else) was idiotic.
April 27, 2008 at 12:27 am
My last answer was “Feel better now?” I think you should probably stay away from sharp implements. Finally we see the real you. Never did get the info on the 9 projects from your renderings. Guess they weren’t built in the United States. If they were built at all.
April 27, 2008 at 12:57 am
You’ve seen the real me all along,
And I’ve seen the real you: a snivelling weasel with no useful purpose. Of course I’m not sharing detailed information with you about where I’ve worked and what I’ve worked on, because you are nothing but a maligner and a hack,
5 of the 9 were built in the United States, but even if they weren’t what would that matter? I guess you’re also one of those people who thinks that the United States alone is the all that matters. Like you alone; you are the only person in the world that matters.
Do you have anything useful at all to offer to anyone?
April 27, 2008 at 1:25 am
re-entering again (Jared)
The minds of entire generations have been utterly wasted from reading the calumniator’s handbook you subscribe to:
Make enemies whenever possible.
Create enemies where they don’t exist.
Malign.
Opponents are:
Unqualified
not credible
irrelevant
corrupt
hysterical
insane
Those are some fine choices you make, Tim.
April 28, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Am I your enemy Rob?
April 28, 2008 at 6:40 pm
You don’t like the tables turned?
Are you going to talk about substance?
April 29, 2008 at 8:24 am
I take that as a “yes”. So be it.
April 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm
You attack and malign.
I ask you to stop.
Thereafter you authorize yourself to declare for me that you are my enemy.
I prefer to speak for myself. You are not my enemy. You seem to try to create enemies. I ask you to talk about substantive issues instead of maligning individuals.
April 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm
And then we can be friends!
Ha, you’re anonymous. I have no idea who you are.