Dudley Webb is hardly the first ambitious businessman to want to leave his mark on the block in the center of downtown Lexington.
A five-member city board will decide this week whether Webb should be able to erase the marks of all those who came before him.
The Courthouse Area Design Review Board meets at 2 p.m. Wednesday in the Urban County Council chambers to hear Webb’s request to demolish the 14 buildings on the block bounded by Main, Upper, Vine and Limestone streets to build his proposed 35-story CentrePointe tower. The $250 million development would house a luxury hotel, high-priced condominiums, stores and restaurants.
The board must approve demolition of the buildings that face Main Street, which are included in the courthouse area historic overlay zone. The board also must approve the design of new buildings so they fit the character of the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Jim Gray has spoken for a broad coalition of preservationists, architects and downtown activists who want Webb to change his CentrePointe design to be more in scale with surrounding buildings and to preserve some of the block’s existing structures — or at least their facades.
Webb argues that it isn’t economical to keep the old buildings, many of which suffered “modernization” in the late 1940s and more recent neglect by their owners. Webb says none of the buildings, which date as far back as 1826, are truly historic or worth preserving.
The Blue Grass Trust, the citizens group Preserve Lexington and others disagree, noting that these are some of the city’s oldest surviving commercial buildings.
Much of the discussion Wednesday is likely to center on the neo-classical building on Main Street that houses The Dame, a popular music hall that closes Sunday night and is looking for a new home.
Built in 1901, the building was a late work of noted Lexington architect Herman L. Rowe, who also designed the Opera House on Broadway and the Carnegie Center — the old Lexington Public Library — at Gratz Park.
A 1979 survey of the block by architectural historian Walter Langsam said the building, which originally housed a candy factory and ice cream parlor, is notable for its “Chicago School” influence, which was then emerging from the work of such architects as Frank Lloyd Wright. The building later housed the offices of Lexington’s utilities and trolley line, a florist shop and clothing stores.
But the buildings that most concern preservationists lie outside the courthouse overlay zone, and thus beyond the board’s reach.
Most significant is “Morton’s Row” — three structures built in 1826 along South Upper Street and anchored by what is now Joe Rosenberg’s jewelry store and pawn shop. The main building is recognizable by its pediment roof with a half-circle window. It is an early example of the Greek Revival style that became popular in 1830s Lexington.
“Although the interiors have been remodeled, it remains one of the most important early buildings in downtown Lexington, both historically and architecturally,” Langsam wrote in 1979 for the Kentucky Heritage Council survey.
Morton’s Row housed a store and other businesses started by William Morton, an Englishman known as “Lord” Morton because of his aristocratic bearing. He started as a Main Street shopkeeper in 1787 and became one of Lexington’s richest and most colorful characters.
Morton built himself one of Lexington’s finest homes, the 1810 Federal-style mansion on North Limestone that is now the centerpiece of Duncan Park. (After Morton’s death, it became the home of Cassius Clay, the fiery abolitionist and namesake of Muhammad Ali.)
Morton helped start Lexington’s first bank and first Episcopal church. He was among those who gave the land where Christ Church now stands. Upon his death in 1836, he left $10,000 for Lexington’s first public school, which was built in 1849 and named for him. He is best known today as the namesake of Morton Middle School.
Morton’s Row has housed groceries, shops and restaurants through the years. The Rosenberg family bought the main building in 1929 and the rest of Morton’s Row in the early 1950s, according to Langsam’s survey.
On the opposite corner of Vine Street at Limestone is a three-story, neo-classical structure with distinctive oriel windows, built in the late 1880s. Older Lexington residents will remember it as Levas’ restaurant, but it was originally Robinson’s European Hotel Dining Room and Eugene Buchignani’s meat market.
By the turn of the century, the building housed Mooney & Klair’s Saloon, which drew a steady clientele from the nearby railroad depot. It was owned by William F. Klair, a colorful character who rose from General Assembly page boy to state representative, railroad commissioner, businessman and Democratic wheeler-dealer.
When Prohibition shuttered Lexington’s saloons, the building became a grocery until the Levas family opened a restaurant there in the 1920s.
A plain but notable building with little chance for survival is the late 1880s shop of R.H. Gray, an African-American tinsmith and inventor who held several patents. The deep, narrow industrial structure, which faces Vine Street in the middle of the block, later housed saloons, a dance hall and several restaurants.
Preservationists would like to see some of this historic fabric woven into a unique piece of contemporary architecture that would help bring people and activity back to the center of Lexington. They want a development that will blend in with the surrounding historic structures — a place people will want to go because it meets modern needs while reflecting Lexington’s rich cultural heritage.
A century from now, Dudley Webb’s mark on Lexington will be considerable. But think how much greater that mark — and Lexington — would be if Webb also could find a way to acknowledge the likes of “Lord” Morton, Herman Rowe, William Klair — and maybe even R.H. Gray.


June 23, 2008 at 12:20 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the owners referred to in this comment by Dudley Webb “and more recent neglect by their owners” in fact people like Joe Rosenberg and others who are his partners in the project? That seems like a pretty self serving and at the same time hypocritical statement…….
June 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm
How can a building dating back to 1826 not be historical??
June 24, 2008 at 8:22 pm
If someone had a stool sample from John Hunt Morgan’s prize horse it could also be considered as “historic” but does that mean that it’s something worth preserving? Just because something is old; it doesn’t mean we have a sacred interest in preserving it. The same thing applies for this block of “structures”. I am not a fan or modern architecture. I was a history major at the University of Kentucky and I own two log homes dating back to 1792 so obviously I do love history and believe in preservation. The simple fact is however that there is nothing in this block worth preserving. The Webb brothers are attempting to do Lexington a HUGE favor. Hopefully everyone who is fighting against this project has taken a close look at the sheer ugliness of what exists there at this moment in time. It is my fondest hope that my fellow Lexingtonians will get this out of their system and allow the Webb Company to do what they do best. Create jobs, create revenue for our city, and most of all create something that in time every Lexington will be proud of.
June 25, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I’m out of town but just saw the news tonight that the Webbs won approval for their demolition request.
So put me down on the losing side, but the side still hoping for the exercise of good taste.
The Board decision tonight demonstrates that the Webbs have the power to do with the block whatever they want to do, and I’m sure no one had doubted that anyway.
What is left for us to do, except to ask the Webbs to think once more and to make this not just about defeating adversaries, but about the exercise of good taste and judgement, voluntarily.
Centre Pointe could be enhanced tremendously and the taste of it improved if the Webbs would voluntarily include, rehabilitate and reuse the Dame building, Busters, and Rosenbergs. This would add so much to life of the street, to Lexington, and to Centre Pointe, if done right. It could combine the best of the old with the best of the new.
Now that the Webbs have the authority to destroy the past on the block, the only question is will they do it. 99.9999% odds are that they will start the wrrecking ball at first light / first opportunity. This would be a shame, since they could do so much more.
I think that’s what the opposition has been saying all along. They just want the Webbs to do more, to go a step further, to take an ordinary project, and make it extra-ordinary.
Lexington deserves it.
Instead of a bold fusion of history and future, we’re likely to get the last vestige of 182 years of history obliterated in a few minutes replaced with something mundane and hollow, but very large.
A Pyrrhic victory.
June 26, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think the Webbs should rent out the bulldozer by the minute. I would pay to take a swipe at those buildings. Hurray for progress!
June 26, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Dear Lexington,
You provided me and my friends with a great place to grow up: good educations, good people, good basketball seasons, and good memories. Some of us stayed for college, living in the grungy student ghetto apartments, frequenting the rat-bag establishments, and loving every minute of those years. But you didn’t keep us. We left as young people often do: off to see the world and its grand adventures, off to grungy grad school living and medical school hours, off to cultures and peoples we’d never imagined.
The kids I grew up with in good old Lexington are now surgeons, architects, editors, executives, professors, bioengineers, artists, scientists, writers, and technology savants. We have degrees from major universities and colleges here and abroad. And nearly every single one of us live elsewhere: Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, Austin, Asheville, Chattanooga, Nashville, Louisville, Raleigh, London, Berlin, Accra, and Tokyo.
These days we come home for the holidays to reunion with family and old friends and the gathering spots are always the same: Joseph-Beth, Common Grounds, and that shabby little strip of watering-holes along Main and South Upper Street that is authentic to Lexington and filled with the people we know. Since the opening of The Dame, the buzz among the Lexington expatriates I know has been that Lexington is making steps (baby steps) toward becoming the hometown we would love to return to someday.
I don’t know what the Courthouse Area Design Review Board was thinking with Wednesday’s decision to step backward. It’s not about the need for upward climbing infill to draw development away from our precious threatened bluegrass and it’s not about the need to protect historic buildings that intrinsically tie into what our city was and is. The point is that Lexington, to be a truly great city, needs to find a way to deeply value and carefully weave all of these elements together. If Lexington can do that with the historic buildings and proposed infill on the Dame/Morton’s Row block, it hints that Lexington can do that on a social and cultural level too; that this is a city that welcomes all people and encourages all voices to thrive and weave together; that this is a city where the so-called creative class can flourish and find a home next to conventional business.
Regardless of intent, what comes across in this decision is a heavy-handed demolition of centuries of history with no true effort or desire to celebrate all the different elements present in this block. What also comes across is that Lexington is not a place for dialogue and incorporation, for creativity and compromise; that Lexington is a place where patrons and supporters of local music venues and homegrown establishments are apparently derided as being unwashed and malodorous.
So, no thanks, Lexington. I think my friends and I will continue to live in places where they do things differently. You really were a great place to grow up; I only wish you were a great place for me to return to.
Oh, and with regard to the CentrePointe hotel: if anyone I know is looking to visit Lexington and stay in expensive, upscale lodging, I’ll recommend Gratz Park Inn. It’s a great little historic inn where you get an authentic feel for the Lexington I love.
June 26, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“The Webb brothers are attempting to do Lexington a HUGE favor.” Like they did to Kentucky Central, its employees, insured, and stockholders? Or like they did with festival market that was such a bust it sold for $700,000 leaving the taxpayers having to pay for the bonds they used to fund it? I’m curious exactly how you define Bloated Pointe, an over priced, over sized, out of scale monument to excess that will most likely start losing money as soon as the World Equestrian Games are over (if not sooner) a “favor”? Considering Dudley’s comment that he wants it finished in time for the games seems to indicate the only “pointe” in building it is to cash in on the games and then, as usual, he will walk away….There are four major medium to upscale condo developments downtown right now that are failing. They are struggling to get them finished, pay their contractors, and lease units. What makes you think an even larger, more expensive, less geared to “locals” project will succeed? The only favor the Webbs are doing is the only kind they know: to their own pockets regardless (in spite?) of the opposition of the majority of Lexingtonians…..You are right about one thing, it is HUGE…..
June 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Grits said it best. The Webb’s had the best opportunity of a lifetime, to show leadership and to do something GREAT and lasting for the city that would have positive influence for generations.
That means having the vision to put the ideas and passions of others to work toward a common goal of greater value than their initially siloed idea.
Instead of exercising vision and leadership, the Webbs are exercising only power.
In the long run that almost always leads to greater expenditure of effort and cost in support of the power play. That means additional wasted effort as well as the loss of the supporting efforts of many others who would otherwise have joined the cause.
If project performance is benchmarked against what could have been the long term return if the project were developed with the guidance of a leader who brings good people and ideas together to create maximum value, the isolate-and-defeat-opponents approach usually comes up short, well short.
June 27, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The city made a great decision to allow the demolision of the old buildings. In fact, today the building inspectors advised that buildings they inspected actually need to be torn down for the safety of our citizens. In spite of it all, I’m told that Centrepoint seeks to re-use some of the bricks from the busters building in the construction process. And they intend to incorporate the fascade of the Rosenberg building. I think that’s a great idea. The Farmer’s market has no problem with the project and even today a local business owner voiced his support for Centrepointe in the H-L.
I, and many others I know are glad to live in a Lexington that refuses to remain stagnate. I understand that Centerpointe had many speakers who showed their support with positive remarks at the recent hearing. These persons were a diverse population ranging from bankers to retired citizens. I appreciate the forward thinking of the Webbs and Rosenberg in turning a blighted area into something we can all be proud of.
June 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I guess you don’t get it. You’ve never seen an old building cared for, restored, and bringing greater value to the owners. I guess you don’t listen when everyone has said over and over and over again, that NO ONE is against redevelopment of the block on a large scale. NO ONE is against the Webbs. Many people want to see a great project that simply includes SOME of the old buil;dings renovated.
When this project is built and becomes an empty unprofitable white elephant, you’ll wish you had listened.
Right now you don’t care because it’s all about you and your pride and your desire to defeat adversaries.
Have fun!
June 27, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I like the old courthouse. I like Henry Clays old law office. I like the Ashland Estate. I like many of the cool old churches in town. I liked what the Webbs did with Victorian Square (17 old buildings restored!) I don’t like what happened to the historical African American Church that was crushed to make way for a Raising Canes restaurant. (That certainly would have been worth fighting for, but not one peep from historical groups on that one.) I don’t like the new development that replaced the church across from Ramsey’s. Talk about a difference in scale in that neighborhood! Not a Webb project though so no one cared. I like the Rosebud. I like the collection of buildings around the Atomic Cafe. I like the Fayette Cigar Store and the buildings on that block. (Hurray for the Cigar Store which didn’t sell out for the new Courthouse Plaza. I really don’t like the metal shower structure passing for art by the Courthouse Plaza. I like the Government Center (used to be a hotel!) although the experts hired by the city to evaluate that building say it is too expensive to maintain and recommended a tear down and rebuild. I think it is a thousand times better than the block at issue. I like the Wolfe Wile building in spite of the phallic projection exiting from the back. (The flag is a nice touch though) I really like the old High on Rose building and wish it were not office space. I liked the buildings that used to be across from Rupp but were torn down for Condos and retail. (Again, not a Webb project so nobody cared).
I like people who think positively about our community and do not attempt, poorly I might add, to put others down because their pride and ego are bruised. I like people that don’t make broad assumptions about others because they have a different viewpoint on a particular issue. I am sorry that those who are against Centrepointe feel like they lost their city to progress. I urge you to exercise your freedom as citizens to move away if you like, but I do wish you would stay, with upturned corners of your mouth and contribute positively to our fine city.
June 27, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I met my wife 19 years ago in that building across from Rupp where the 500s on Main are now. At that time it was called the Brewery. It was a mediocre building and I’ve not missed it.
Lexington has seen 5 decades of systematic misguided demolition, but that does not mean that all demolition is regrettable. The preservation groups that advocate for buildings on the Cenre Pointe block do not object even to more demolition, even on that block.
Of the 14 buildings on the block, half or less of those are even considered candidates for preservation within the context of a new and large development on the same block.
Of those remaining 6 or 7 buildings, even inclusion of only 3 or 4 of those would make an enormous positive difference.
That’s being reasonable, accomodating, and progressive.
Firing up the bulldozer and smashing the wrecking ball through every single building on the block represents the opposite approach, and paints a very clear picture.
It’s a position that represents an attitude of zero tolerance for compromise. With the very long history in Lexington of misguided demolition, the preservation of only 20 percent of the area of the enitre surface of the block is completely reasonable and the remaining 80% leaves more than enough room for incredible innovation and large scale development.
You sir, are a fan of TOTAL VICTORY. You stand for defeating all other voices, and then to erase for all time, the memory of even a few important buildings. Not because renovating them would prevent progress on the block, but because you want total victory, annihilation, and humiliation of your opponents.
That is the attitude that drives people away, that “Grits” explained so well. It may drive me away too. Another option I consider though, is getting into the development business myself. There’s nothing stopping me.
I believe Preserve Lexington has shown the way forward for collaborative engagement between neighborhoods and developers and I intend, God willing, to engage them in it, from the development side.
June 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm
People need to smile more. It takes less effort than a snarl. Or they could meet halfway in a reasonable, accomodating way and just not frown.
June 28, 2008 at 2:53 pm
If this had been, or would be, handled correctly by those making the decisions (the Webbs), then I and everyone else here, now, far away, and for a long time to come, would have reason to smile.
The question of greatness is at stake, legacy, no less.
June 28, 2008 at 11:32 pm
i’m going to buy the property on the block (all of it) and then develop it. My development plan will perform better for Lexington, and better for investors, with less risk for both.
June 29, 2008 at 12:35 am
“People need to smile more. It takes less effort than a snarl. Or they could meet halfway in a reasonable, accomodating way and just not frown.”
People tend to smile when there is something to smile about. The only time most people smile at giant white elephants is when they’re drunk….Funny you mention meeting people half way in an accommodating manner. That is exactly what the Webbs refused to do in spite of the best efforts and rational arguments of reasonable people that actually live in Lexington full time and care about a vibrant downtown everyone can enjoy and not just the wealthiest Lexingtonians and out of towners viewing it from a luxury condo or hotel room window….
June 29, 2008 at 1:06 am
“The city made a great decision to allow the demolision of the old buildings. In fact, today the building inspectors advised that buildings they inspected actually need to be torn down for the safety of our citizens.”
Considering it was the Webb’s, Joe Rosenberg, and the other “recipients” of Webb money for the properties that let the buildings deteriorate (much like Gus Moss did the historic “blue building” further up Limestone and for the same reasons, to get it condemned so he could tear it down), do you realize the disingenuous nature of the Webb’s concern for the “safety of our citizens”?
“In spite of it all, I’m told that Centrepoint seeks to re-use some of the bricks from the busters building in the construction process. ”
Oh how “noble” of them, and such concern for preserving the historic nature of downtown. By all means, you should take up a collection to place a plaque telling of this generous and noble symbol of their wonderful efforts at historic preservation on the new facade of the building. Perhaps they can use a few of those bricks you’re talking about to frame it….
“And they intend to incorporate the fascade of the Rosenberg building. I think that’s a great idea.”
Nothing like preserving a monument to yourself and tearing down the rest…That is perhaps the least significant and least attractive facade on the block….perhaps they can leave the pawn shop balls hanging over the street too…that will really be a swell look!
“The Farmer’s market has no problem with the project…”
Maybe because they set up on the street on Vine and it doesn’t really affect them. Of course, there’s no telling how long a bunch of local farmers in their pick up trucks will be allowed to line one side of such a glorious and fancy pediment once it is actually built. We wouldn’t want all those high dollar tourists that will be staying there to have to look out there window at the roofs of old pickup trucks. It might discourage them from coming back…
“…and even today a local business owner voiced his support for Centrepointe in the H-L.” One businessman, wow, that’s really amazing! Who would have imagined such vocal support from so many! And on the editorial page no less! Well, I have to admit, you certainly have me smiling now. Why I’m laughing so hard I nearly fell out of my chair!
June 29, 2008 at 2:23 am
On April 5, 2008, Dudley Webb said:
“Josie”, as we have said all along, this project is not being driven by the 2010 Games as absolutely nobody would invest $250,000,000.00 in downtown Lexington for a three week event.
On June 26, 2008, Dudley Webb said:
“I would like to see the project buttoned up by the 2010 games,” Webb said, adding that he meant he did not want CentrePointe to look like a construction site when thousands of visitors come to Lexington for the Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games.
Just like his contradictory statements concerning the TIF funds, this is the kind of double talk some of us have come to expect from Dudley Webb and are why we have difficulty swallowing what he is feeding the city…..
June 29, 2008 at 9:05 am
After further thought, I agree with the opposition in some respects. Don’t bother to use the Busters bricks or the Rosenberg fascade. It certainly seems the inclusion of those items do not matter to those that are against the project, in whatever form.
It also appears that many people do not know the details revealed during the recent public hearing. The TENANTS of those buildings had the contractual and legal responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the buildings. It was the TENANTS that made modifications and allowed the deterioration. The Dame is a good example. They, irresponsibly and unintelligently, added an air conditioning element to the third floor of the builidng that should have been placed outside the building. This unit required a lot of ventilation and because it was placed INSIDE the building rather than outside, the bright owners of the Dame opened the windows of the third floor and left them open for the elements and whatever type of animal to enter the third floor. This caused considerable damage to the building and hastened its demise. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger. Those buildings were in bad shape before the Webbs ever got involved. They are doing the responsible thing by removing them and rebuilding the block.
I applaud those that don’t like this project and that have expressed a desire to enter into the development business in order to preserve/restore/construct/utilize properties, especially downtown. I support your efforts to bring your own vision and vibe based upon your investment. I look forward to seeing the results of your endeavors.
June 29, 2008 at 11:58 am
Thank you, Tim.
I intend to formally announce, soon, my intention along with a management and investment team to purchase the Dame block.
I hope you will find our proposal initiates a different kind of development process compared to what Lexington has known over the last 50 years or so. I also hope you will agree that it is time to assess the development practices we’ve known for 50 years and compare them to other methods and outcomes.
I believe the momentum built by the public interest in the Dame block development will in hindsight mark an inflection point where Lexington altered its development course.
The days of property owners who let their properties deteriorate in the vainglorious hope for some kind of mega project that will save the downtown are over.
We need property owners who maintain their buildings and who bring in tenants and people who contribute to the life of the downtown.
40 years of misguided demolition are enough. We need to invest in our existing buildings, renovate them and make them attractive to businesses and individuals instead of letting them rot to justify their demolition.
We need to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on white elephant projects that can not succeed except at the expense of the rest of the downtown.
The mega project funnels away critically needed investment in the rest of our building fabric and at the same time pulls away tenants who otherwise would occupy our other buildings and justify their maintenance and renovation.
Numerous mega projects downtown are examples of this effect. We must learn from our collective mistakes together. These projects were oversized from the beginning. And they are ugly buildings because money that otherwise might have been spent on design detail was unavailable because it was spent only on increasing the size of the building beyond what the market supports.
The double damage of oversizing a project is the drop in market rates and the loss of tenants, pulled out from the rest of downtown, from other buildings of greater character, beauty, and contribution to the urban landscape of Lexington.
We must turn away from this approach in Lexington. The Ben Snyder school of development, apologies to Ben Snyder whose namesake building was allowed to rot in the 1980’s to justify its demolition, is not serving us well.
We need to put an end to this now and that means creating a new development company whose mission is different.
We’ll do new development, right-sized, for the right market, and in balance with a serious and continuous preservation effort.
This is the work of civilization.
A well functioning city, conserves physical infrastructure that is owned by civic-minded individuals who value their property and safegaurd it in a conservative manner driven by long term value generation.
These owners understand the significance of assett conservation and protection, both for their individual business interests, and for the interest of sustaining the larger local and regional business community.
They hold a conservative view relative to the relationship between physcial infrastructure, integral business interests, and our cultural inheritance which is given to us only by continuous systematic effort, generation after generation.
Our cultural inheritance is not given to us by systematic dereliction of duty decade after decade and the funneling of enormous investments into oversized mega projects incongruent with the market that avoid becoming white elephants, if they can, only at the expense of a large area of other downtown properties that neither receive investment, nor occupancy that would justify investment, since both of these resources are disproportionately consumed by the counterproductive mega project casting an overly large shadow of disinvestment in its midst.
A project initiated by disinvestment, and due to its mismatch against market reality, dependent on decades of continued disinvestment within a large surrounding radius will not perform well by substantial measures that we will soon propose.
Our development plan for the Dame block will be different and when benchmarked comparitively will perform substantially better for us, for our investors, for the surrounding business community downtown which we will encourage to thrive, and for the cultural inheritance of the people of Lexington.
Our development plan will be based on innovative market-driven infill, and a serious long term conservation effort beginning with renovation of some of the substantial infrastructure on the Dame block and the re-use of these structures to generate long term value.
That is to say, we will propsose some demolition, some preservation and renovation, and some infill.
We’ll do this in a balanced market-driven way that when benchmarked against the current proposal will show substantially greater return over the long term, not just within the block, but acting as a good municipal citizen, catalyzing conservative decisions and investment across all of downtown instead of disproportionately consuming both occupants and investment from the same.
We’re interested in net gain.
June 29, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Tim, If you will note, I had the very first posted comment and in it I asked “correct me if I’m wrong” regarding the very issue of upkeep responsibility. I wasn’t at the hearing and personally did not see anything in the Herald regarding the terms of the leases (not that it wasn’t there, I just didn’t read it in the articles I read). With as many comments as you have posted and considering you didn’t mention this until your last post, I really don’t consider your accusation my comments are “a classic case of shooting the messenger” to be fair or accurate. In fact, it seems somewhat disingenuous of you to label them as such under the circumstances.
That being said, I would still raise the question were The Dame and others forced into those solutions? It would seem that HVAC units and installation are not “maintenance and upkeep” but are a part of the structure itself because they are a permanent installation. I have difficulty understanding why any business that has a lease that is not long term would be expected to install HVAC units that would benefit the landlord. In the event they didn’t renew the lease the landlord could realize substantial financial benefit by allowing a tenant to install an HVAC unit and then terminate the lease getting the HVAC unit for free. At the very least that reeks of a slumlord style landlord. Also, why would any respectable and/or responsible landlord knowingly allow one of their tenants to damage their building? Regardless of who is supposed to be responsible for ‘maintenance and upkeep”, the landlord would seem to have not only an interest but an obligation to them self and the city to ensure they have tenants that are responsible, which, if what you say it true, wasn’t the case. As I said, I am more inclined to believe that the Dame and other tenants were forced into their position by landlords that had no inclination and accepted no responsibility for insuring their own property’s were kept up.
June 30, 2008 at 11:32 am
Let me clarify. When I say intent, I really mean “desire”. I have no capability to raise this kind of money. I would like to. That is all.
The reason I’d like to do it is because I would like to become a developer engaged in perpetual collaboration which I think is a new kind of business model that would work well in development, and would allow development activity itself to help a city determine the methods and tools available to effectively prioritize preservation.
Anyway, that’s just me, and those are just ideas.
June 30, 2008 at 5:20 pm
John57, I have never seen the Dame lease, but I can offer some insight based on what was said at the meeting and previous articles in the Herald Leader (all of which, of course, is itself questionable, but you have to go with what you got).
First, the Dame had a Triple Net Lease. In a Tripple Net Lease the tennant is often responsible for everything, including construction, maintenance, taxes, and insurance. This is nothing like a residential lease. Commercial tennants often make significant structural changes to the buildings they lease, from changing flooring and paint to adding or removing interior walls. The parties’ various responsibility for the extent of the changes is a contractual issue between the landlord and the tennant. That’s the whole point of the the lease.
Second, from what I’ve read it appears that the Dame did have a long term lease, but the lease also had an early termination provision that required Rosenberg to pay a substantial sum of money to terminate the lease early. That is how the two business owners who negotiated the lease decided to alocate their various risks. Any loss inclurred by the Dame for making a financial investment in the building was offset by the large check they accepted to vacate early.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the Courthouse Overlay Guidelines, the value of the buildings, or the value of the proposed development. But its hard to listen to the constant criticism of the owners that completely ignores the fact that these are commercial builidings that housed commercial tennants (i.e. business owners that were also out to make a profit), and who also saved a lot of money over the years by neglecting their responsibilities for maintaining the buildings.
June 30, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Martin, that’s all understandable. Thanks for making that clear.
Let’s be clear though about why these buildings are being demolished (bulldozers are on site at this moment).
The buildings are being demolished not because of the choice of some tenants or because of their non-performance of building maintenance.
The buildings are being demolished, because of a decision to demolish made by the owners.
For their decision /choice, the owners have aggregated SUFFICIENT authority.
Others argue, myself included, that because of other factors including the cultural inheritance of Lexington and civic responsibilities for the maintenance of physical infrastructure, that their choice does NOT rise to the level of prerogative.
It rises only to the level of action, from among many other possible actions that could have been more favorable to the owners.
They’ve exercised their choice however, apparently, and now we know that we’re losing something that can not be recovered.
Is this a model for future development decisions? There are other models. Have a look at this idea entitled “perpetual collaboration”.
These papers are written for a government audience, but the “six forces/drivers and the mandate for perpetual collaboration” ring true in the construction industry and elsewhere.
http://www-03.ibm.com/industries/government/doc/content/bin/gov_ibm_institute_for_business_value_quick_read.pdf
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/ideasfromibm/us/government/20080519/index.shtml
Imagining the alternative, we’re left with perpetual confrontation, which some would argue (including CURT, white paper 1202, 2004 http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/ip_%20productivity.pdf ) is the extreme at which we currently operate.
Moving to the other extreme of perpetual collaboration sounds much better. But of course it’s always a question of degree.
Maybe what we should aim for is to move from
• perpetual confrontation with occasional collaboration
to
• perpetual collaboration with occasional confrontation
This of course only works among willing participants.
June 30, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I read the argument made by the Atlanta engineer for the Webbs that at 100/sf to renovate the Dame, for example, lease rates would need to be in the 20-40/sf range and that this exceeds current rates in other downtown buildings.
However, one would imagine that it does not exceed projected rates within the Centre Pointe development itself after it is built, because CentrePointe certainly will not be built for less than $100/sf, which is unheard-of-cheap these days.
The return on renovation costs for the Dame, Rosenbergs and other buildings to be included in the new project as part of Centerpointe should take into account the increased marketability of space on the block at the higher lease rates the project is projected to demand, without which the entire project would not move forward in the first place.
The Board made the essential error of measuring renovation costs against projected return in those renovated buildings by themselves, not as part of the whole Centrepointe development on the rest of the block.
So the argument is what Preserve Lexington has proposed all along: a substantial and large new development on the block and the inclusion as an integral part of the development renovation of some of the existing buildings.
If carefully integrated into the design of the whole project (for example, the ball room or other spaces of the hotel could be partially or entirely contained within the Dame building), the renovated buildings would command lease rates comparable to the higher rates applicable to the entire CentrePointe project. Those calculations would show that renovation WOULD provide adequate financial return.
June 30, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Come to think of it, if it were done that way, the renovated Dame and Rosenbergs builsings integrated with the design of the new block and tower would have a greater than even chance of commanding a premium lease rate ON TOP OF the already increased lease rate for the project as a whole.
That is, it is easy to imagine that a number of the sought after national retailers and boutique retailers would pay the lease rate projected for Center Pointe PLUS a premium for occupying the premium renovated space inside the Dame building. Likewise, a renovated Rosenbergs building could lease to the hotel restaurant or an independent restaurant serving hotel guests who would quite enjoy the charm of the old building and its history, particularly if they had the option to dine in an outdoor patio giving them a view of the Rosenberg building together with the new project and tower.
And what would be wrong with that? Who would be unhappy with that? I really just can not understand why anyone would be dissatisfied with that result. Centre Pointe moves ahead in substantial entirety, and a few of the exisitng buildings are renovated and integrated into the project. Everyone gets what they want. The city preserves important parts of its heritage. The value of the project is increased along with the beauty of it. The developers make more money.
Somebody will have to explain to me why that’s not the best possible result.
Honestly, if the Review Board follows its own rules I do not see how an appeal will not win, if it is filed.
July 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Rob,
You lose.