Typical wrote on Dec 15, 2006 2:39 PM:
" Perhaps the owners should have discussed what could be done to comply before starting the remodel and maybe we would have found a solution before it became an issue or is there an attitude of "we will do it and ask forgiveness later"? "
Nestor wrote on Dec 11, 2006 11:23 AM:
" Ran the first NSP Energy Conservation Program. FYI is correct. These people are being asked to dance to two songs at the same time. Also, If you look closer you will find that the people on this Board would starve if they were asked to turn a profit or earn a living without Gov funds, donations, or Gov Employment. "
FYI wrote on Dec 11, 2006 7:38 AM:
" Wisconsin State Energy Codes with regard to renovations dictate what can and cannot be done with a renovated structure. Even a historical building. The new owners are correctly following the law!
The Preservation Commission did not do their homework when mandating unlawful restrictions.
The new owners should be mad as hell for being held up while the "commission" figures out how to wiggle their way out of this one. "
Simple Fact wrote on Dec 10, 2006 7:36 AM:
" If the Heritage Preservation people are so concerned, let them PAY FOR THE WINDOWS OUT OF THIER OWN POCKET. "
you have no idea wrote on Dec 9, 2006 10:37 PM:
" Used to work there near a window. Had to try to put tape over the holes and cracks to keep from freezing. Used to wish I could work with mittens on. "
Trash to Treasure wrote on Dec 9, 2006 10:00 PM:
" That dump of a building has been through the mill literally. The new owners should be able to update the windows to todays standards so it would at least be a little more efficient for their tenants. I used to work at that hole and in the winter time the cold would blow so hard it made the heavy curtains move. The frames were bent on some and people would try to putty them up, but it never did much good. Also in the summer time the heat was unbearable not to mention blinding. The new windows look much betterr than the old ones. That building is and was an eyesore! I think they should also tear off the La Crosse Footwear signs, Rubbers, overshoes etc. If someone also thinks they're so valuable, have an auction and let them display the ugly things. "
eyesore wrote on Dec 9, 2006 9:53 PM:
" The building is just an eyesore. They should let it rot into the ground!
50 years from now the grandchildren of the people who tried to stop Walmart from coming to town will be try to perserve the "big box store" historical building! "
DK wrote on Dec 9, 2006 6:11 PM:
" The new windows look fine. Much better than the old ones. They don't change the look much but it will look better when all the windows have been replaced. This is a no brainer if the building is going to be used. "
Nice wrote on Dec 9, 2006 5:49 PM:
" Let the building be updated. The city is lucky that somebody bought the crate. How can anybody consider that the old boxy crate is a Historical building? Where was the uproar before they tore the old Lax post office down? "
i like the look wrote on Dec 9, 2006 5:13 PM:
" i think what they have done looks damn good. people use your imagination and imagine the whole facade like the lower level. not bad at all. and to the person that wrote the windows comletely change the character of the building, so does painting a house or building, so where do you draw the line with these types of refurbishes? but what strikes me the most is ussally the ones who do the most complaining about 'change' are the ones who are least likely to buy something and renovate. it takes money to renovate this type of structure, so there HAS to be trade offs. either that or level and start from scratch or just let it sit vacant. "
construction worker wrote on Dec 9, 2006 3:36 PM:
" The window pane color has to do with the National Energy Code. South facing windows get dark colors to refect more sunlight, not let that heat into the building. Maybe a bluish or greenish tint would be an ok compromise. As to the size, it is unlikely that even top of the line insulated glass will allow them to meet the energy codes, that is why they are smaller.
"
RSM wrote on Dec 9, 2006 1:58 PM:
" This is a historic building. The key is understanding and appreciation of our history and future -- the connection between increasingly attractive historic buildings in La Crosse and revitalized economic growth. When done right, it becomes a treasure. When not done right, it looks like a cobbled up mess. Let's do it right. "
Why the wait? wrote on Dec 9, 2006 1:17 PM:
" We did a remodel this last year and we couldn't swing a hammer without people crawling all over us to inspect this or that. Maybe the owners of this eyesore should consider changing the spelling of their last name to H-o-e-s-c-h-l--e-r. "
Yes.. I agree wrote on Dec 9, 2006 10:45 AM:
" The place looks better with the windows redone. Maybe if the building were more modern and efficient, LAX Footwear would not have moved. Anyway, I think the old dinosaur should be remodeled. It is a bit of an eyesore as it stands. Not to mention, a bit of a hazard too.
"
Who Cares what PAL thinks. I don't wrote on Dec 9, 2006 10:14 AM:
" it's a sore looking building they are trying to get some use out of. The PAL is always a day late on everything. Remember all the hoopla over the Brewery being torn down. Remember the agreement to use the arch and other key items from the building as landscaping on the lot? I do. Apparently PAL doesn't. They should mind thier own business and let the owners make any and all use of the building as they see fit. PAL won't follow up anyway. "
This is murderer wrote on Dec 9, 2006 10:07 AM:
" Don't allow them to destroy the apperance of this building. It is so sad to see that some people have no concept of astetetics. Stand up for the buildings that are a part of our legacy Preservation Alliance!. Dark tinted windows don't help either, as it makes the building look like it is not a friendly place to enter. "
Typical wrote on Dec 9, 2006 10:05 AM:
" So, who dropped the ball? The commission waits until the work is done before inspecting the building? Where is the oversight here? Nobody's responsible? A typical La Crosse fisaco. That's why it's citizens are angry. "
think about it! wrote on Dec 9, 2006 9:56 AM:
" People just need to mind their own business and let the people who bought the building improve it and make it work for what they need it for. Saving money on heating and cooling is important too. The bottom windows don't look that bad. At least someone has interest in it and it will not sit emtpy and get more run down.
"
JS wrote on Dec 9, 2006 9:49 AM:
" My take on this is that this is valuable property with a footwear building with very little use. If the city and owners have not realized already, there is a overabundance of commercial offices. We don't need anymore warehouse/office space. If the cost cannot be recovered through remodeling the building, then take the building down and try to attract some new jobs to town. But then we would probably see TIF #15 because the mayor thinks that is the only way to invest in new infrastructure. It's time to welcome ourselves to the 21st century and realize that this historic preservaton is only preventing this prime real estate from growing to it's true potential. Save the historic preservations for downtown and bring the old down to give way for the new. "
It can be done wrote on Dec 9, 2006 9:18 AM:
" There are many older industrial buildings with large windows that have been successfully renovated so they are functional, energy efficient and historically in character. This one can be done just as well with a little more research and effort. "
Local Government Watch wrote on Dec 9, 2006 9:09 AM:
" The new windows look nice. If renovation will bring more life to this building and someone in the private sector is willing to do it, then government needs to stay out of it. "
Re Footwear building wrote on Dec 9, 2006 8:12 AM:
" I can hardly believe they are really going to try and renovate that dump. They would do everyone a favor by tearing it down and starting over. "
I understand wrote on Dec 9, 2006 7:42 AM:
" the dilemma with energy efficiency to make the building more usable for other business and such. But the new windows that have been installed change the look of the building completely. I think the commission has a very valid point! I'm sure there is a way to replace/ refurbish the current windows and still preserve the same look, it's probably all comes down to cost. "
My two cents wrote on Dec 9, 2006 6:41 AM:
" The old windows look much better. The new windows completely change the character of the building. "
Just another case to stop developement wrote on Dec 9, 2006 3:52 AM:
" This is just another example of how someone wants to turn a useless building into something of value, but we have a historical society that wants to live in the past. That building and those windows in that place are and were shot when it was in operation. Believe me, I know. If the owners can't renovate that old place to updated code, they should just accidentally burn the damn place down. As it is it's an eyesore. When are they going to take the stupid LaCrosse Rubber Mills signs down? It's out of business so take down the signs. "
eeek wrote on Dec 9, 2006 1:59 AM:
" The new construction on that first floor looks just awful ! It looks like so many other newer constructions....uninteresting, cold, no architectural details at all, just massive amounts of blocks of concrete with odd dark square panes of glass. Thank goodness they were made to stop. Take a look at the creative, tasteful ways architects in other cities have renovated older buildings. Right here in Wisconsin we have many examples of tasteful renovations that enhance the style of older buildings. "
Advertisement
