Non-RR preservation: "No no NO, that's not the building!"

p51 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:43 pm

It’s always a good idea to be on site when demolition is afoot on your property. Case in point: http://news.yahoo.com/18th-century-french-chateau-razed-mistake-124226251.html
It’s real easy to imagine an old railroad station being bulldozed instead of the outbuilding a museum wanted removed, isn’t it?

Rick Rowlands · **Posted:** Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:33 pm

Isn't it amazing how frequently these "by mistake" things happen these days? This isn't the first time the wrong building has been demolished, and it seems that on a monthly basis SWAT teams seem to be going to the wrong addresses, busting down doors and terrorizing residents.

It never hurts to VERIFY before taking irreversible actions!

Bobharbison · **Joined:** Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:42 pm **Posts:** 3010

Sadly, the mistakes aren't always mistakes. Property owners stuck with a historic designation and the associated costs sometimes resort to shady tactics.

Here's one directly related to railway preservation.

Quote:

After years of protecting and sheltering local residents and students from inclement weather, the 101-year-old trolley station that sat outside of the Hasbrouck Laboratory is gone.

The structure – which in recent years had served as a bus shelter – was demolished by the Barr and Barr construction company on May 29 without the permission of the University of Massachusetts, a University official said.

Quote:

There had been conflict over the removal of the trolley station for months before the building was demolished. A group called Preserve UMass, as well as the Amherst Historical Commission, had both taken an interest in the structure, which was built in 1911 for Amherst’s first trolley system, which ran through Sunderland and later to Northampton.

In a letter published in the Gazette in February, Jonathan Larson, an emeritus professor at the UMass, wrote: “ Unlike many historic structures that have been adapted to modern uses, the Waiting Station continues its original use to provide shelter, not for streetcar patrons, but for thousands of students, faculty, staff and others who use the public bus system that covers most of the towns once served by the Amherst and Sunderland Street Railway.”

http://dailycollegian.com/2012/09/04/hi ... emolished/

DuesyJ29 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:52 pm **Posts:** 95

It's such a shame to see a building bulldozed by "mistake". I sure those of us from the Lone Star State remember the sinister tactics used to level the Katy Freight Depot in Dallas.

For those of you who aren't aware, the owner applied for the permits stating it was a 500 square foot shack. When the city tried to stop him, he had the crew knock it down on a Sunday while the city offices were closed. I seem to remember he was fined about $4,000,000 for his transgressions. A small price to pay for the utter destruction of history if you ask me.

Mike S.

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:17 am

p51 wrote:

It’s always a good idea to be on site when demolition is afoot on your property. Case in point: http://news.yahoo.com/18th-century-french-chateau-razed-mistake-124226251.html

Yeah, and seeing the photos of the building just prior to demolition, I can guess how the mistake might have been made. The building looked real bad in some photos http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... stake?lite
Now if the outbuilding looked pretty nice, the demo guys might've decided it was obvious that they should be knocking down the beat up and abandoned building. that notion gets in their head and they're 'off to the races'.

We all know that restorations often look like neglect until they're nearly done. But I'm not a fan of that. Those first impressions really have an effect on people. A thing under restoration should LOOK to the untrained eye like it's under restoration, and I don't mind doing some work out-of-turn to achieve that look, even if it means doing the work over later.

If the public comes and sees something desperately needing paint, that draws attention and it's disappointing. But if they see 9 panels desperately needing paint, 3 panels in primer and 7 more panels freshly painted, that draws attention and it's inspiring: visitors see that it's actively being worked on. This actually looks better than work that is finished, which does not draw attention at all.

wilkinsd · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:30 pm

robertmacdowell wrote:

We all know that restorations often look like neglect until they're nearly done. But I'm not a fan of that. Those first impressions really have an effect on people. A thing under restoration should LOOK to the untrained eye like it's under restoration, and I don't mind doing some work out-of-turn to achieve that look, even if it means doing the work over later.

If the public comes and sees something desperately needing paint, that draws attention and it's disappointing. But if they see 9 panels desperately needing paint, 3 panels in primer and 7 more panels freshly painted, that draws attention and it's inspiring: visitors see that it's actively being worked on. This actually looks better than work that is finished, which does not draw attention at all.

Robert,

I agree with your point. I've seen several well-done restorations where those in charge have focused on the exterior first, as it gives the impression that work is being done, and progress is being made. I think it is a good approach, when you can do it that way, as it can be used as a powerful fundraising tool. If you work on the interior of the coach first, before painting it, then most of your work is "hidden." However, the other way around, you have tangible results you can show both donors and potential donors.

Ron Travis · **Joined:** Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm **Posts:** 1543

I would never order a demolition of a building on a site containing more than one building without being there to make sure they take down the correct building. Merely communicating the information by some means ahead of time leaves an unacceptable risk.

Mike Stillwell · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:48 pm

What legitiamte contractor would write an estimate for demo-ing the guard shack (time*people+equipment*time+disposal) and "accidentally" do the big house? I have a very close buddy who runs an excavating company. Things are run very tight. I don't beleive this was a mistake for a second. Either they would have shown up with too few people and machines or way too much. The error would have been obvious before the start.

Mike Stillwell
Buena Vista, VA.

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:20 pm

I agree it seems suspicious, for the reasons you cite, Mike. I favor the "accidental" theory for two reasons: first, that much hate would have left a long trail of precursor evidence, and I trust the press would have picked up on that because it would be so deliciously scandalous.

Second, never attribute to malice what can be easier attributed to stupidity.

These two things require different types of defenses.

p51 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:35 pm

robertmacdowell wrote:

Second, never attribute to malice what can be easier attributed to stupidity.

Best.... advice..... EVER!