Role-playing Fun with Ocryx and Joe!
by NineInchNachos on 9/29/2009 @ 8:18am
|You're a sick man.|
by The Jinxmedic on 9/29/2009 @ 8:25am
by KevinFreitas on 9/29/2009 @ 9:02am
|Zing! Well said/drawn Mr. Jinx|
by Thorax O'Tool on 9/29/2009 @ 11:24am
I mean, wow. BURN!
...do I detect a rising tide of Eric Anderson disapproval?
by The Jinxmedic on 9/30/2009 @ 8:20am
|Yes, you do. That referendum idea doesn't sound like too bad a plan right about now.|
by fredo on 9/30/2009 @ 8:35am
|I was one of the Luzon supporters, but my friend William Dickson who brought the building down told me it was in horrible condition. It might have been unsalvageable. Why code enforcement didn't require a roof on this structure is really the question here.|
by NineInchNachos on 9/30/2009 @ 8:42am
|@fredo to a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Code enforcement would mean closing a valuable loop-hole exploited by capitalists, namely 'demolition by neglect'
by fredo on 9/30/2009 @ 9:04am
|Nachos@ two good points I hadn't considered, thanks.
A lot of posters are blaming Eric Anderson for the Luzon demo. I'll bet Anderson is just the hatchet man for the forces behind the scenes who wanted the Luzon gone.
by NineInchNachos on 9/30/2009 @ 9:18am
|hey, now I think you're just being sarcastic.|
by The Jinxmedic on 9/30/2009 @ 9:39am
|Fredo, I agree with you that Anderson is probably just a hatchet man for the unseen forces that actually do the moving and shaking behind the scenes- for all we know, there may be a giant project (not necessarily a larger parking lot) that requires this entire block to be empty for the deal to close. However, that doesn't make Anderson any less culpable in this matter. Point being- If you want to be the front man for the big unpopular decisions, you had better be prepared to take your lumps- that's the territory that comes with the big salary of public executive office, whether it's an elected position or not. It's a "squeaky wheel" kind of thing, and certain members of CLAW provide the grease...|
by Thorax O'Tool on 9/30/2009 @ 9:55am
|What irks me is not Anderson himself, but that the city manager has the authority to override both the mayor and the city council.
An unelected person who has power over the elected officials. Not good.
by The Jinxmedic on 9/30/2009 @ 10:24am
|That's exactly my thought on this, as well. What good is a mayor and city council if they have no authority whatsoever?|
by fredo on 9/30/2009 @ 11:54am
|The city council could have weighed in and overridden Anderson's decision but they elected to defer. The incompetance of our city council is on full display time and time again.|
by morgan on 9/30/2009 @ 1:57pm
The city manager was simply carrying out orders. I understand there was a last minute effort by the Mayor to save the building, but he could not get the full support of the council.
Based on the email I received from Connie Ladenburg "we do not have the choice of waiting an longer while they do their negotiations," Marilyn Strickland's comment about the razing of the building "It is time to move on" and the sheer quietness from the other council members - it sounded like the mayor had a challenge ahead of him. Everyone had already drank the kool-aid and decided it was time to move on.
by Thorax O'Tool on 9/30/2009 @ 8:02pm
|I heard Back from Jake Fey, and I quote from his response to me:
"I did request, along with the majority of the City Council, that the City Manager delay his decision to demolish the building and get an independent opinion from a structural engineer. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not satisfactory to me, go ahead and demolish the building on Saturday."
So it looks like at least we had at least District 2 on the side of caution...
by fredo on 9/30/2009 @ 8:08pm
|"we had at least District 2 on the side of caution"
Because of grammatical problems with mr. fey's reply it's not clear what his response actually was. The second sentence is incoherent.
by The Jinxmedic on 10/1/2009 @ 8:08am
|Destroy it all!! Mwuhahahahaha!|
by Mark Monlux on 10/1/2009 @ 5:28pm
|It had a freaking tree growing out of it! Sure, I love old buildings as much as the next guy, maybe even more. I live in an old house so crooked a marble could take a tour from the front door to the back. But, my house doesn't have a tree growing out of it. I used to dream about how nice the Luzon would be all fixed up. But, there is a reason nobody has touched it until now. Tree. Growing out of the side of it. Yeah, a tree. Not a bush. A tree.|
by Thorax O'Tool on 10/1/2009 @ 9:01pm
|Not a tree.
It was a butterfly bush. For real, a Butterfly Bush.
Compare, if you dare:
Luzon Tree vs Butterfly Bush.
by The Jinxmedic on 10/2/2009 @ 8:55am
|It doesn't really matter what the particular variety of Flora was- it's dead now. Just like our hopes and dreams for the Luzon.|
by ixia on 10/2/2009 @ 9:11am
|Buddleias are already taking root at old city hall. We've lost over 30 % of our urban tree canopy over the last couple of decades. If was a plant, I'd climb up there too. Sure, you risk coming down with the building, but a least you can live in peace for a while.|
by fredo on 10/4/2009 @ 7:59am
|At the risk of making this thread drift a bit further I would like to offer this opinion.
The city of Tacoma already has too many unmaintained "street trees." I'm tired of the mess and broken concrete occasioned by these arborial blunders. Want some greenery between your walk and the street? How about hostas, azaleas or ornamental grass?
by ixia on 10/4/2009 @ 8:45am
|Arboreal blunders are what clean the air and give you oxygen. Perhaps that's what is lacking, Fredo.
Replacing trees with hostas? I can't take you serious.
by fredo on 10/4/2009 @ 9:18am
|Sidewalks which are cracked by big tree roots cause elderly people to fall and break their hips leading to old folks home and a premature death. Maybe the tree-huggers would like that on their conscience, I know I wouldn't.
Hostas don't trip old people.
by fredo on 10/4/2009 @ 9:35am
|Stickland wants us to "move on". Good suggestion. I'm moving on to Merritt's campaign.|
by NSHDscott on 10/5/2009 @ 2:58am
|You can report broken sidewalks to the city. If they find the sidewalks don't meet the city's stringent criteria, which is likely, the homeowner will have to fix them. I know, it happened to me. It was a big crack caused by an inappropriately selected street tree that I'm sure led to the initial report, but while they're at it, the city is making me fix all sorts of little, non-trip-hazard cracks as well, at considerable expense. Anyway, not trying to be bitter here, just pointing out that you can have street trees and nice sidewalks, you just have to tell the city where the problem areas are. Street trees are awesome and hostas are no substitute.
As for the Luzon, I can confirm that was a buddleia ("butterfly bush") growing out of it, and don't take that as sole proof of the building's condition. Buddleia are big weeds that can grow in the poorest conditions and with very little substanance.
by fredo on 10/5/2009 @ 6:54am
I've had the same experience. If you pour a new sidewalk on top of old roots you will find the same cracked sidewalk before too long. I'm not trying to be bitter here, just pointing out that the public policy requiring perfectly smooth sidewalks and the public policy of having as many street trees as possible are inconsistent with one another. Even trees which are recommended as street trees such as "ornamentals" can ruin $10K worth of cement in a hurry. If the tree was planted by the property owner then I can understand the requirement that he be held responsible, but when the trees were planted by the city to beautify the area and to add oxygen, then I think the city should pick up the tab for the broken cement.
by Thorax O'Tool on 10/5/2009 @ 2:43pm
|@ NSHDscott and Fredo:
you wouldn't have that expense if you were renters.
by The Jinxmedic on 10/5/2009 @ 3:26pm
|The city has an approved list of tree species for planting in the "green strips". The species of the trees allowed depends on the width of the strip. The tree list is actually pretty extensive, and all on the list are approved on the basis of having the least amount of damage potential. (ie overhead utilities and sidewalk heaving). The best part- the tress are FREE to property owners. (See, I do attend my community meetings and manage to learn things).
by fredo on 10/5/2009 @ 6:37pm
|If the city tells you they have a species of tree that won't break the sidewalk, that would be a lie. You can buy a beautiful tree with a burlap root ball at a good nursery for $150 and plant it in your yard where it won't break the sidewalk. Pay $150 now or pay several thousand when the free city trees destroy your sidewalk. That would be the definition of penny wise and pound foolish.
Thorax I'm pretty sure that renters pay the pro-rated share of all taxes, insurance and maintenance related to the property where the rental unit exits. The landlord isn't going to eat these expenses.
by The Jinxmedic on 11/10/2009 @ 9:05am
|Mayor Strickland? Remember the words, "It's time to move on", and realize now that we're in for more of the same old same old, multiplied.
At least Mayor Baarsma actually tried to do something about it.
by The Jinxmedic on 5/12/2010 @ 2:15pm
|As long as we're on a roll, here's some more Parking Lot fun from the archives!|
by Dave_L on 9/3/2010 @ 2:04pm
|(Which thread should I bump for this...)|
This from the good folks at www.historictacoma.org
(I am way late in sending in my renewal)
Daniel Burnham documentary to air on PBS
MAKE NO LITTLE PLANS: DANIEL BURNHAM AND THE AMERICAN CITY, a new one-hour documentary, will air on
Monday Sept. 6 on PBS. The film tells the story of a dreamer who shaped some of America's best-known places and spaces, including Tacoma's recently-demolished Luzon Building. The film explores Burnham's career and complex legacy as public debate continues today about how and for whom cities are planned.
Narrated by Oscar nominated actress Joan Allen, MAKE NO LITTLE PLANS combines digital models, original drawings, personal letters, and animated graphics to highlight dramatic developments that transformed both Burnham and the American city-- the early development of the skyscraper; the impact of the 1893 World's Fair; and the physical reconfiguration of existing cities, including our nation's capital.
"He had a personality that was as big as the subject of cities", explains architect David Childs, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, and one of many noted commentators in the film. "We should care about Burnham because he was part of a group that changed ideas about planning and architecture and because of the fact that our cities are full of the history that he caused to happen."
The documentary will air on KCTS at 11pm on the 6th. Otherwise, check your local PBS station for listing or go to www.pbs.org/make-no-little-plans
by NineInchNachos on 9/15/2010 @ 2:21pm
|"David Boe warns that Old City Hall is our next Luzon."
by Dave_L on 9/15/2010 @ 6:30pm
|Historuc Tacoma striving to make a difference and brimg about change and awareness:: www.historictacoma.org/|
7-9pm, Sunday, September 26th at the site of the 1891 Burnham & Root-designed Luzon Building,1302 Pacific Ave.
Bring a flashlight for lighting effects and to spotlight the speakers: Sharon Winters, Historic Tacoma, and Jennifer Mortensen, WA Trust for Historic Preservation. Sharon will describe where the City's at in addressing at-risk historic buildings and Jennifer will share her insights on the Luzon story and what we might learn from it. See Jennifer's powerful article in the current issue of the Trust News, "Lost Urgency: The Luzon Building."
by The Jinxmedic on 9/16/2010 @ 9:15am
by NineInchNachos on 4/11/2011 @ 8:44pm
|they both turn into angry eyebrow birds at the end. Also I would like a t-shirt with 'flipped out' Ocryx|
by The Jinxmedic on 11/16/2011 @ 9:35am
|Ocryx and Joe- Beating up on Eric Anderson since 2009...|