The Sale of the Village Post Office and Adjacent lots: Your Views Should Be Heard
Sarah- To accuse people of lying, as you're doing, is a pretty hefty accusation. And I'd fathom a guess that continuing to flame this thread with potshots and put-downs towards people who "share the Engage Maplewood agenda", instead of actually taking part in positive dialogue, is likely scaring off those who might want to share their ideas for a different vision.
No one has attacked you. No one has put you down or accused you of lying. Yet you're intimidating people who are calmly sharing their ideas, thoughts and visions. Why?
You may interpret the facts differently than others, but personally disagreeing with the facts presented -- or even how the facts are presented -- doesn't make them lies. The majority of the people of Maplewood don't know the plans for PO development -- because the TC hasn't outwardly told them. Just because something is on the docket at a town meeting, or being shared with a handful of folks at the Village Alliance, does not mean it is being broadly disseminated to the community. In fact, many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera. And historically, Maplewood did much the same thing, involving the community in community planning until relatively recently.
Tell you what-- I don't understand why the TC won't release details, refuses to do so. Why the MVA is not allowed to discuss the plans they've seen. Winky already stated that their information was garnered firsthand, directly from the MVA, and provided the email address on the other thread. So if you're questioning Winky's info about the MVA being told to keep quiet, you should write to the MVA and ask them to corroborate it. In my case, I wrote directly to the Township Committee and was told by Jerry Ryan, point blank, that information on the design selection process was proprietary and confidential, and would not be shared. That is a fact, also gathered firsthand. And I'm dumbfounded.
Obviously, I do have a lot to learn, so if you can explain to me why you think that it is ethical and moral for the Township to withhold this information, and to tell the MVA to keep it secret, I'm all ears and will calmly listen to your explanation.
No one has attacked you. No one has put you down or accused you of lying. Yet you're intimidating people who are calmly sharing their ideas, thoughts and visions. Why?
You may interpret the facts differently than others, but personally disagreeing with the facts presented -- or even how the facts are presented -- doesn't make them lies. The majority of the people of Maplewood don't know the plans for PO development -- because the TC hasn't outwardly told them. Just because something is on the docket at a town meeting, or being shared with a handful of folks at the Village Alliance, does not mean it is being broadly disseminated to the community. In fact, many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera. And historically, Maplewood did much the same thing, involving the community in community planning until relatively recently.
Tell you what-- I don't understand why the TC won't release details, refuses to do so. Why the MVA is not allowed to discuss the plans they've seen. Winky already stated that their information was garnered firsthand, directly from the MVA, and provided the email address on the other thread. So if you're questioning Winky's info about the MVA being told to keep quiet, you should write to the MVA and ask them to corroborate it. In my case, I wrote directly to the Township Committee and was told by Jerry Ryan, point blank, that information on the design selection process was proprietary and confidential, and would not be shared. That is a fact, also gathered firsthand. And I'm dumbfounded.
Obviously, I do have a lot to learn, so if you can explain to me why you think that it is ethical and moral for the Township to withhold this information, and to tell the MVA to keep it secret, I'm all ears and will calmly listen to your explanation.
Johnharvey8 said:
I will commit to being more disciplined in staying away from "the hyperbole, exaggerations, veiled accusations, fear mongering and stuck to facts", that you suggest … if you commit to doing the same in your commentary.
Well, that would make MOL a very boring place, wouldn't it?
Denniss, ctrzaska, and sarahzm, I will post the analysis Vic shared, which is based on a mathematical calculation so, I believe (and check me here, sarahzm) it is a fact, not my opinion.
MaxWeisenfeld - bear with me as I am going to post it on a separate thread not because no one is reading this, as you suggest, but because it is a broader topic than this thread: the impact of multiple multi-apartment developments in Maplewood on the number of school-age children in our town.
As I posted previously, I welcome more people in Maplewood. However, I believe the cost of the education component of our local tax bill as a result of an increase in the number of school-age children should be a key part of the financial analysis to determine the best development solution.
Look for the thread - John
MaxWeisenfeld - bear with me as I am going to post it on a separate thread not because no one is reading this, as you suggest, but because it is a broader topic than this thread: the impact of multiple multi-apartment developments in Maplewood on the number of school-age children in our town.
As I posted previously, I welcome more people in Maplewood. However, I believe the cost of the education component of our local tax bill as a result of an increase in the number of school-age children should be a key part of the financial analysis to determine the best development solution.
Look for the thread - John
No one has attacked you. No one has put you down or accused you of lying. Yet you're intimidating people who are calmly sharing their ideas, thoughts and visions. Why?
I really don't mean to attack people who are sharing their ideas thoughts and visions. When people do that I have been silent.
There is a difference between calmly sharing ideas and visions and the campaign that you have been a part of. I can't imagine that you don't see that.
I really don't mean to attack people who are sharing their ideas thoughts and visions. When people do that I have been silent.
There is a difference between calmly sharing ideas and visions and the campaign that you have been a part of. I can't imagine that you don't see that.
I'm not part of any "campaign". I don't ride bandwagons. I'm an independent thinker, and I support what I believe is the right thing to do -- a broad dialogue with townsfolk about the future of our town as it directly relates to the PO site, and for the TC to be transparent in its processes. If I wasn't on tour in October, I would have been at the TC meetings raising hell.
Dec 18, 2013 at 11:37am Edited
In fact, many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera. And historically, Maplewood did much the same thing, involving the community in community planning until relatively recently.
Can you name any communities anywhere in the country that are similar to Maplewood that have a practice of notifying the entire population with town-wide phone calls and mailings when the sale of a property or a major development is being considered. Can you name one.
I love downtown Maplewood, and I'd like to see it's character preserved, but can you tell me the criteria that lead you to call our town "historic". What constitutes "historic".
I am not attacking your posts. I am just asking you to clarify them, to substantiate the claims you are making here.
Can you name any communities anywhere in the country that are similar to Maplewood that have a practice of notifying the entire population with town-wide phone calls and mailings when the sale of a property or a major development is being considered. Can you name one.
I love downtown Maplewood, and I'd like to see it's character preserved, but can you tell me the criteria that lead you to call our town "historic". What constitutes "historic".
I am not attacking your posts. I am just asking you to clarify them, to substantiate the claims you are making here.
Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:
I support what I believe is the right thing to do -- a broad dialogue with townsfolk about the future of our town as it directly relates to the PO site, and for the TC to be transparent in its processes.
I remain at a loss to understand how we have not had a "broad dialogue" or how the process is supposed to be more "transparent."
If I'm not mistaken, the TC held multiple public forums about the PO site. It has discussed the issue at countless open public -- i.e., transparent -- TC meetings. What do people want? To sit in on meetings with developers? To decide the fate of the property via referendum?
Those opposed to the process seem to object to the fact that the Mayor and other TC members have their own ideas about the site. What the hell is wrong with that? Are their minds supposed to be empty vessels on this issue [or any other] until filled up by the collective wisdom of our creative and thoughtful townsfolk? Hogwash. I don't want a bunch of luggageheads on the TC. I want smart, thoughtful, hardworking people -- and those kind of people tend to form opinions. And, I might add, those opinions, while certainly subject to challenge, are no doubt based on a much greater knowledge and understanding of the complex development issues involved than 95% of the public.
Finally, I'll say what I always say about these inevitable process complaints about big local policy decisions: what the process folks are opposed to is not the process but what they fear will be the outcome. If the TC were proposing to build a structure to their liking -- say a cultural center with trendy shops and no housing -- none of them would be complaining about the process. Process complaints are a means to trying to delay the ultimate decision long enough in the hope -- almost always in vain -- that the powers that be will change their minds.
sarahzm said:
In fact, many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera. And historically, Maplewood did much the same thing, involving the community in community planning until relatively recently.
Can you name any communities anywhere in the country that are similar to Maplewood that have a practice of notifying the entire population with town-wide phone calls and mailings when the sale of a property or a major development is being considered. Can you name one.
I love downtown Maplewood, and I'd like to see it's character preserved, but can you tell me the criteria that lead you to call our town "historic". What constitutes "historic".
I am not attacking your posts. I am just asking you to clarify them, to substantiate the claims you are making here.
London England
Dec 18, 2013 at 12:31pm Edited
Really ??
London England
You claim that many small historic towns across the COUNTRY ( I thought you meant THIS country) have stricter land use laws and that by law any changes MUST involve town-wide announcements, including mailings and phone calls .
And I ask you to back up what you claim, and show that you are telling the truth and not just making things up, and name just one, just one town in America that actually calls or mails each of it's residents, as you claim, and you pick a foreign capital. Really. That's the best you can do ?
If this is an attack I'm sorry. I'm laughing. I'm incredulous. I can't help it.
Are you claiming that when they built Canary Wharf or the London Eye they called or mailed every single person in London.
Are you equating the historic significance of our beloved Maplewood with that of the world's great Capitals. One with a history dating back at least 1000 years.
I'm laughing . I'm done here.
London England
You claim that many small historic towns across the COUNTRY ( I thought you meant THIS country) have stricter land use laws and that by law any changes MUST involve town-wide announcements, including mailings and phone calls .
And I ask you to back up what you claim, and show that you are telling the truth and not just making things up, and name just one, just one town in America that actually calls or mails each of it's residents, as you claim, and you pick a foreign capital. Really. That's the best you can do ?
If this is an attack I'm sorry. I'm laughing. I'm incredulous. I can't help it.
Are you claiming that when they built Canary Wharf or the London Eye they called or mailed every single person in London.
Are you equating the historic significance of our beloved Maplewood with that of the world's great Capitals. One with a history dating back at least 1000 years.
I'm laughing . I'm done here.
sarahzm -
There are many towns that have different types of governing structures in place than Maplewood has. You just need to use your search engine.
But the example of London is valid as an example of a city that values the input of its citizens and doesn't assume it is too large to do so.
Of course there are smaller towns all across the world to look at. But as you said, London is one of the world's great capitals. Actually the comparison is valid as there were some similar issues - of course not all.
A redevelopment plan was about to go forward for Piccadilly in London. It would have encompassed large scale, tall buildings that would have dwarfed and completely changed Piccadilly Square. The plans were done and they were close to putting shovels in the ground. The city of London decided to hold a referendum prior to commencement of the project. The citizens of London decided against the project. So Piccadilly remains the charming entity we all like to visit.
I am certainly not saying that London is on an equal footing with Maplewood but if a city as large as London could respect it's large citizenry enough to facilitate a referendum, so can little old Maplewood.
There are many towns that have different types of governing structures in place than Maplewood has. You just need to use your search engine.
But the example of London is valid as an example of a city that values the input of its citizens and doesn't assume it is too large to do so.
Of course there are smaller towns all across the world to look at. But as you said, London is one of the world's great capitals. Actually the comparison is valid as there were some similar issues - of course not all.
A redevelopment plan was about to go forward for Piccadilly in London. It would have encompassed large scale, tall buildings that would have dwarfed and completely changed Piccadilly Square. The plans were done and they were close to putting shovels in the ground. The city of London decided to hold a referendum prior to commencement of the project. The citizens of London decided against the project. So Piccadilly remains the charming entity we all like to visit.
I am certainly not saying that London is on an equal footing with Maplewood but if a city as large as London could respect it's large citizenry enough to facilitate a referendum, so can little old Maplewood.
Designed for those who enjoy throwing around the population of Maplewood............
The 2011 population of London was 8.1 million
I will not compare our restaurants with theirs.
The 2011 population of London was 8.1 million
I will not compare our restaurants with theirs.
I like your example. It's inspiring. You should have used that first
but you didn't. You said
" many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera."
I am wondering if you didn't just make that up. I've asked you to name just one town that does as you describe , and you don't seem to be able to.
London is a good example and I see how it relates, but when you have such a good example why on earth dont you just stick to what you know to be true. Why make things up.
Here's a story for you:
A little over 4 years ago the company that I worked for was merged into it's sister company. Both brands had been owned by the same parent company. The procedures were similar, the top management was the same. We lost our name, and some of our "local" management, Our stationary and materials were different but not much else changed.
Less than a week after the merger the president of the newly merged company came to our office. He met with us, and gave us a pep talk. It was at that "talk" that all was lost. He spent a two hours with us. In that two hours most of what he told us was probably the truth. But he also lied to us a few times, and exaggerated a few others and everyone knew it. Those few lies were unnecessary and self serving. He could have/should have told the truth and would have been the better for it. Those few lies that we were able to catch tainted everything else he said and tainted him and the company he led as well. In addition to the lies that we caught him in , he made us other promises that we had no way of verifying. But because we had caught him in a few misrepresentations we could not trust him.
We wanted to like him, but instead we began to look at him with contempt. There were 56 real estate agents on the roster at that time. Most of them were quite successful. Within four years all but 5 had left. 51 out of 56 agents took their business elsewhere. When some agents resigned, the president , that very same person who had lied to them at their first meeting asked them what he could do to make them stay - anything they wanted. But there was nothing he could offer that could overcome the fact that they did not trust him.
I think your premise is a fair one. I think the way you have gone about it has cost you a lot of support.
but you didn't. You said
" many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera."
I am wondering if you didn't just make that up. I've asked you to name just one town that does as you describe , and you don't seem to be able to.
London is a good example and I see how it relates, but when you have such a good example why on earth dont you just stick to what you know to be true. Why make things up.
Here's a story for you:
A little over 4 years ago the company that I worked for was merged into it's sister company. Both brands had been owned by the same parent company. The procedures were similar, the top management was the same. We lost our name, and some of our "local" management, Our stationary and materials were different but not much else changed.
Less than a week after the merger the president of the newly merged company came to our office. He met with us, and gave us a pep talk. It was at that "talk" that all was lost. He spent a two hours with us. In that two hours most of what he told us was probably the truth. But he also lied to us a few times, and exaggerated a few others and everyone knew it. Those few lies were unnecessary and self serving. He could have/should have told the truth and would have been the better for it. Those few lies that we were able to catch tainted everything else he said and tainted him and the company he led as well. In addition to the lies that we caught him in , he made us other promises that we had no way of verifying. But because we had caught him in a few misrepresentations we could not trust him.
We wanted to like him, but instead we began to look at him with contempt. There were 56 real estate agents on the roster at that time. Most of them were quite successful. Within four years all but 5 had left. 51 out of 56 agents took their business elsewhere. When some agents resigned, the president , that very same person who had lied to them at their first meeting asked them what he could do to make them stay - anything they wanted. But there was nothing he could offer that could overcome the fact that they did not trust him.
I think your premise is a fair one. I think the way you have gone about it has cost you a lot of support.
Dec 18, 2013 at 1:17pm Edited
A tutor who tooted a flute
tried to tutor two tutors to toot
said the two to the tutor
"Is it harder to toot
than to tutor to tooter to toot?
For those who think my premise is a fair one but don't like the way I have gone about it
and feel it has cost me support I will get suspenders.
tried to tutor two tutors to toot
said the two to the tutor
"Is it harder to toot
than to tutor to tooter to toot?
For those who think my premise is a fair one but don't like the way I have gone about it
and feel it has cost me support I will get suspenders.
sarahzm -
" many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera."
I didn't say that, someone else did...I was just commenting on it. and I didn't make anything up
" many small, historic towns such as ours across the country have much stricter land-use laws, and any large-scale changes absolutely MUST involve the town, town-wide announcements, phone calls, mailings, et cetera."
I didn't say that, someone else did...I was just commenting on it. and I didn't make anything up
Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:
Hey, posters...how about offering thoughts based on the original topic posted?
I did. But John replied to something completely different than what I said (hint: I didn't mention taxes), then raised a straw man issue (school age children, a false concern that has been debunked many times).
And still non of the sock puppets can come up with a viable alternative, just empty fantasies and inflated scare tactics, so I am checking out of this thread like I checked out of the previous one. Buh-bye.
David, you have hit the nail on the head. Yes -- people want to sit in on meetings with developers and town planners. And to have a referendum. Inclusion is the key to successful land management and civic planning.
Many small towns in New York require referendum (which requires contacting every single voting citizen in town) for large-scale land use changes or major civic expenditures; Chappaqua, NY is a good example. A recent purchase of town-owned land for their Fire Department required a referendum before they could proceed with the initiative. One other town in particular that has a very strong land-use law favoring historically sensitive redevelopment, involving citizens in a widespread way, is Newport News, Virginia. And the town itself states the goal of educating their citizens about better land use -- They even teach kids at the grade school level the history of their town and why they've embraced historic preservation and adaptive reuse in such a widespread way.
And a final example is North Reading, MA, which has a very strong law in regard to the sale of town-owned land. If a parcel is to be sold, it requires first an evaluation by the town board, then a municipal review with a report on the land issued to every single public entity, including the school boards and housing and conservation boards -- "any then current committees whose charges relate to use of town-owned land." The land may then only be sold if a municipal use is not suggested by any single one of those committees. On top of the basic notifications required by state law, any intention to sell must be published prominently for two straight weeks in a paper having circulation within the town; i.e., disseminated broadly to the citizenry.
On a larger level: In Oregon in 1973, when it became obvious that a new land-use law was needed (as farmland was disappearing rapidly due to over-development), "Commissioners and staff met with chambers of commerce, elected officials, League of Women Voters chapters, and business clubs. They held nearly one hundred workshops around the state. Ten thousand people participated directly in the drafting process. The statewide goals have not been seriously challenged, in part, because the workshop process built a wide constituency of voters with a personal stake in the success of the program."
References:
http://www.nngov.com/planning/downloads/ch9.pdf
http://ecode360.com/10382566
http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/stories/landuse/landuse.php?p=15
Many small towns in New York require referendum (which requires contacting every single voting citizen in town) for large-scale land use changes or major civic expenditures; Chappaqua, NY is a good example. A recent purchase of town-owned land for their Fire Department required a referendum before they could proceed with the initiative. One other town in particular that has a very strong land-use law favoring historically sensitive redevelopment, involving citizens in a widespread way, is Newport News, Virginia. And the town itself states the goal of educating their citizens about better land use -- They even teach kids at the grade school level the history of their town and why they've embraced historic preservation and adaptive reuse in such a widespread way.
And a final example is North Reading, MA, which has a very strong law in regard to the sale of town-owned land. If a parcel is to be sold, it requires first an evaluation by the town board, then a municipal review with a report on the land issued to every single public entity, including the school boards and housing and conservation boards -- "any then current committees whose charges relate to use of town-owned land." The land may then only be sold if a municipal use is not suggested by any single one of those committees. On top of the basic notifications required by state law, any intention to sell must be published prominently for two straight weeks in a paper having circulation within the town; i.e., disseminated broadly to the citizenry.
On a larger level: In Oregon in 1973, when it became obvious that a new land-use law was needed (as farmland was disappearing rapidly due to over-development), "Commissioners and staff met with chambers of commerce, elected officials, League of Women Voters chapters, and business clubs. They held nearly one hundred workshops around the state. Ten thousand people participated directly in the drafting process. The statewide goals have not been seriously challenged, in part, because the workshop process built a wide constituency of voters with a personal stake in the success of the program."
References:
http://www.nngov.com/planning/downloads/ch9.pdf
http://ecode360.com/10382566
http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/stories/landuse/landuse.php?p=15
Jeremiah-Chappaqua, NY had a referendum to purchase private property to build a fire house. Not the same thing as what's happening in Maplewood. Also of note are these bits of news about the purchase process.
"The measure passed 77-47 and also gives the district, which includes the Chappaqua Fire Department, to sell property."
http://chappaqua.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/fire-district-land-buy-referendum-passes
I know there are more than 124 people who live there.
And then there is this--
"The referendum, which was authorized by an April 11 resolution from the commissioners, was the subject of concern from some residents, according to comments in online media, that there was not enough time for the public. Commissioners told Patch that the topic was discussed at several board meetings, which are open to the public and take place on the second Thursday of each month, and explained that the authorization is beneficial to taxpayers."
http://chappaqua.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/fire-district-land-buy-referendum-passes
Appears to me that Chappaqua followed the same set of procedures that Maplewood does, no?
"The measure passed 77-47 and also gives the district, which includes the Chappaqua Fire Department, to sell property."
http://chappaqua.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/fire-district-land-buy-referendum-passes
I know there are more than 124 people who live there.
And then there is this--
"The referendum, which was authorized by an April 11 resolution from the commissioners, was the subject of concern from some residents, according to comments in online media, that there was not enough time for the public. Commissioners told Patch that the topic was discussed at several board meetings, which are open to the public and take place on the second Thursday of each month, and explained that the authorization is beneficial to taxpayers."
http://chappaqua.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/fire-district-land-buy-referendum-passes
Appears to me that Chappaqua followed the same set of procedures that Maplewood does, no?
Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:
David, you have hit the nail on the head. Yes -- people want to sit in on meetings with developers and town planners. And to have a referendum. Inclusion is the key to successful land management and civic planning.
Many small towns in New York require referendum (which requires contacting every single voting citizen in town) for large-scale land use changes or major civic expenditures; Chappaqua, NY is a good example. A recent purchase of town-owned land for their Fire Department required a referendum before they could proceed with the initiative. One other town in particular that has a very strong land-use law favoring historically sensitive redevelopment, involving citizens in a widespread way, is Newport News, Virginia. And the town itself states the goal of educating their citizens about better land use -- They even teach kids at the grade school level the history of their town and why they've embraced historic preservation and adaptive reuse in such a widespread way.
And a final example is North Reading, MA, which has a very strong law in regard to the sale of town-owned land. If a parcel is to be sold, it requires first an evaluation by the town board, then a municipal review with a report on the land issued to every single public entity, including the school boards and housing and conservation boards -- "any then current committees whose charges relate to use of town-owned land." The land may then only be sold if a municipal use is not suggested by any single one of those committees. On top of the basic notifications required by state law, any intention to sell must be published prominently for two straight weeks in a paper having circulation within the town; i.e., disseminated broadly to the citizenry.
On a larger level: In Oregon in 1973, when it became obvious that a new land-use law was needed (as farmland was disappearing rapidly due to over-development), "Commissioners and staff met with chambers of commerce, elected officials, League of Women Voters chapters, and business clubs. They held nearly one hundred workshops around the state. Ten thousand people participated directly in the drafting process. The statewide goals have not been seriously challenged, in part, because the workshop process built a wide constituency of voters with a personal stake in the success of the program."
References:
http://www.nngov.com/planning/downloads/ch9.pdf
http://ecode360.com/10382566
http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/stories/landuse/landuse.php?p=15
Sorry, but this is a terrible way to run a government. Are you actually proposing that random citizens be allowed to participate in negotiations with developers? As for the referendum, wharfrat makes a valid point. In special elections like this only a tiny percentage of the electorate is paying attention, let alone getting its act together to vote. In a referendum on a land use issue, this means that the NIMBY's will dominate, thereby distorting the results.
I much prefer to have the members of the TC -- who represent the interests of the entire town and each of whom is held accountable every three years -- make the call. Call me Madisonian, but direct democracy is not always the best democracy. See, e.g., California. This is not to say that the TC should not be queried, lobbied and challenged, just that, at the end of the day, they are inevitably more well-informed and, given their need to balance the various political, fiscal and development issues, more likely to make a decision that is in the entire community's best interest.
Maplewood has a "quaint" downtown because of geography. It isn't built on main roads.
The architecture is at best pedestrian and at worst hideous with the post office at the top of the hideous list with the one story "taxpayers" up by Bill and Harry a strong second. To pretend that MW village is some sort of architectual gem is wrong. It is a time capsule preserved by its location and the fact until recently nobody wanted to spend a lot of money building new buildings.
Even in a worst case scenario, the new building at the post office site will be an improvement.
The architecture is at best pedestrian and at worst hideous with the post office at the top of the hideous list with the one story "taxpayers" up by Bill and Harry a strong second. To pretend that MW village is some sort of architectual gem is wrong. It is a time capsule preserved by its location and the fact until recently nobody wanted to spend a lot of money building new buildings.
Even in a worst case scenario, the new building at the post office site will be an improvement.
Dec 19, 2013 at 5:12am Edited
bobk said:
Maplewood has a "quaint" downtown because of geography. It isn't built on main roads.
The architecture is at best pedestrian and at worst hideous with the post office at the top of the hideous list with the one story "taxpayers" up by Bill and Harry a strong second. To pretend that MW village is some sort of architectual gem is wrong. It is a time capsule preserved by its location and the fact until recently nobody wanted to spend a lot of money building new buildings.
Even in a worst case scenario, the new building at the post office site will be an improvement.
How dare you!!! Dave, Jamie - ban this man for life.
So, I would be happy if the building has a facade like the Bagel Chateau building or Leo Nails building.
If it looks like Leo nails building - "faux tudor" - it will be okay. Just no fake materials please. Must be real brick, mortar, wood.
Dec 19, 2013 at 5:43am Edited
I think Leo nails used real stucco. Does it have to be applied by Italian masons?
I guess I am just crotchety today, but the "Leo" building is really ugly. It is a box with some faux tudor details.
bobk said:
I guess I am just crotchety today, but the "Leo" building is really ugly. It is a box with some faux tudor details.
You are since you started off by saying that the Village "architecture is at best pedestrian and at worst hideous with the post office at the top of the hideous list ".
bobk said:
Maplewood has a "quaint" downtown because of geography. It isn't built on main roads.
The architecture is at best pedestrian and at worst hideous with the post office at the top of the hideous list with the one story "taxpayers" up by Bill and Harry a strong second. To pretend that MW village is some sort of architectual gem is wrong. It is a time capsule preserved by its location and the fact until recently nobody wanted to spend a lot of money building new buildings.
Even in a worst case scenario, the new building at the post office site will be an improvement.
Clearly a new building will be an aesthetic improvement, noone is debating that.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I will make you a deal: I will commit to being more disciplined in staying away from "the hyperbole, exaggerations, veiled accusations, fear mongering and stuck to facts", that you suggest … if you commit to doing the same in your commentary. A deal? Anyone else?
Thanks - John