Architecture schools are not teaching energy conservation for sure. It seems that architects are designing wildly inefficient public buildings with trying to win some award in mind...all on the public's dime. I resent having my tax dollars being spent so that some architect can win an award down the road with buildings that are inefficient in energy usage and wasted space. The new police station seems to be energy efficient anyway.

Rick Q, if George Dubya Bush and Barbara Steisand can kiss and hold hands, anyone can. Why are you sorry? Where did that come from anyway? Left field?

It not only has been "said" that the parish is a willing seller, they have declared as such...although I didn't know that the price was $4 million. That is a lot of dosh when added to the cost of demolition. In my opinion the property is not worth it. The Model property has already been completely razed I believe, which would make it much more economical.

I never said that this purchase was "about historic preservation, tourism", but rather about a willing seller and buyer making a deal on a piece of private property. The main reason for saving it is about historic preservation and tourism".

What mechanism should be used by "the government" to "step in and stop this mess all together." This is a private transaction. You state that "All of existing steeples should come together and purchase the Good Shepherd Steeple. As many dollars that are collected weekly and rent it out." What entities are you talking about that could come up with the asking price of $4 million? We were having a real world conversation here. I doubt that renting it out will recoup $4 million dollars in this century, you are dreaming.

Judging from the article, why do they even need to build a judicial center here at all...it seems that we are doing just fine without it? Maybe someone who is well versed on the need for such a facility could chime in...

You wanna smooch Rick?

Thanks Rick. We don't want to "kiss and hold hands", but we're just trying to have a conversation without the childish sniping made possible by the anonymity of the Web.

If you don't like your breezy old house, then move out of it, or maybe buy some insulation.

I agree that somebody who shouldn't is benefiting from this transaction, and my bets are with Julian Carroll. He's been instrumental in blocking the Model Laundry site, saying it's not part of downtown. I'm sure there are others too. It's the Frankfort way!

Frankfort seems adept at wasting public dollars. Just look at the new police station in South Frankfort. What a total waste of money, and it's another piece of ugly architecture.

All I can say is the architecture schools aren't exactly teaching creativity.

I'm sorry but JD, you and SD may as well kiss and hold hands. The bottom line is that it will cost more money to rehabilitate/renovate an old building inside and out and the infrastructure from blocks around. As for living in an old house with a breeze? I do and I don't like it. The only one that has made since is Sam I Am!

It's been said that the Good Shepherd Parish are willing sellers. Dagnabit for 4 million dollars, I'd be willing to sell also! The four out of five private property owners on the Model Laundry site were willing to sell and for the chump change that was being offered at the time. I believe it was 1.5 or 1.9 million dollars for the total site that the Powers-that-be was offering. Why do you think Old Model Laundry was torn down? They are willing to sell but if you have 4 million dollars to give to Good Shepherd, now it's known that what was said at first about not having a lot of money for the purchase of property was just talk. Trying to get a lot of something for nothing! You're going to have to go back to them and apologize and start the renegotiation.

This is not about historic preservation, tourism or anything else JD, come on, as you said, you worked for the state! You know that money is being passed under the table. I'm not accusing anyone of it but it's happening.

The new Presidential Administration is talking about Infrasture and Frankfort is still ignoring it. I declare! In my opinion, the government should step in and stop this mess all together.

Leave the New Transportation Building, the History Center, the Twin Bridges, the new City Commission Building, Library and all of the other new facilities downtown alone. For goodness sake, if you ask someone other than the residents of Frankfort what they think ahout those facilities, they will tell you that they are beautiful and functional. It's ridiculous to even consider tearing down any part of Good Shepherd. This is a case of selective "willing sellers and willing buyers".

All of existing steeples should come together and purchase the Good Shepherd Steeple. As many dollars that are collected weekly and rent it out.

The bottom line is did anyone read the November 19, 2008 Lexington Herald Article? Here it is:

Lexington Herald-Leader (KY)
November 19, 2008
Section: CITY REGION
Edition: Final
Page: B3


State's chief justice warns that court system is underfunded
Deficit of $37.8 million expected by 2011
JACK BRAMMER JBRAMMER@HERALD-LEADER.COM

FRANKFORT - Kentucky's courts system is experiencing financial woes that could affect programs, personnel and new courthouses, Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. told lawmakers Tuesday.
If funding to the courts continues at the same level, the judicial branch expects a $37.8 million deficit in 2011, Minton said to members of the Interim Judiciary Committee. Minton also said the courts, with its $293 million annual budget and 3,700 employees, might be hit by a round of cuts this fiscal year.

He noted that Gov. Steve Beshear's administration has projected a revenue shortfall of $294 million in the executive branch this year, and on Friday a group of independent economists might increase that figure.

It's likely that Beshear will ask the judicial and legislative branches of government to bear the burden to meet the constitutional mandate of a balanced state budget, Minton said.

Beshear said he has not yet formulated a plan on how to address a budget shortfall for this year, but he expects to have one in December.

Minton told lawmakers that the judicial system's money problems primarily are caused by personnel costs and funding of new judicial centers.

He said the looming deficit means the courts system must make cuts in spending, increase court fees or "face significant reductions in services to the people of the commonwealth at a time when citizen demands on the justice system are greater than they have ever been."

He noted that 1.23 million new cases were filed in Kentucky's trial courts in the fiscal year that ended last June 30. That is an increase of about 40,000 from 2007. The number of cases jumped another 43,000 from 2006 to 2007.

Minton said he has tried to reduce personnel costs, which make up about 88 percent of the courts' operating funds. From May through September of this year, 73 full-time positions - or 0.2 percent of workers - have been eliminated, mostly through attrition.

State Rep. Robin Webb, a member of the Judiciary Committee and first vice-chair of the House budget committee, said she was "distressed, but not surprised" that the judicial branch is having money problems.

"There's going to have to be a totally serious restructuring of our internal workings in all three branches of government," she said. "There is no choice."

Still, Webb said, she would not vote for any more fee increases for Kentucky courts.

Beshear said he plans to first reduce state spending, and then, if necessary, look at ways to produce more revenue, such as increasing the 30-cent-a-pack cigarette tax.

"This is not going to be an easy thing to get through but we can get through it. We will get through it if we work together," Beshear told reporters after kicking off an effort to boost enrollment in the state's children's health insurance program.

The money is getting ready to be taken away, Period.

I agree with you that historic houses have real character and I enjoyed living downtown where everything was within walking distance. I understand the allure to living in a historic home. I also lived in a great older house, built in 1940, located in Crestwood Sub. that I restored and completely insulated. That really made a big difference in the utility usage.

I have given my money and time to help in the restoration, and agree that it is worth it to save the Grand. Plus, there really isn't any where else in the area like it, and we need a good venue for music and the arts.

I too have enjoyed our intelligent conversation about this subject. It has been most stimulating. I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree and your good points have helped me further shape my opinion on this issue.

As far as not caring about my drafty old house, what I mean by that is that I prefer living in an historic house. That's just my taste, and it's how I exert my "private property" choice.

I consider my purchase of an existing home good for the environment because I still believe that building a new home, even if it's energy efficient, is more of a burden on the environment in the long run. After all, it is one more house that's put on the grid. Buying an existing house is like recycling to me.

I agree with you that not all rehabilitation is less expensive than new construction, but new construction also either takes up more land or is put in place of existing structures, some of them historic ones, and some of them important.

As you say, the Grand is costing a lot to restore. My question to you is, "is it worth it?". It sounds like you think it is worth it to restore the Grand. I am also one of those people that thinks it's sad that we tore down the Capitol Theater to build a parking lot.

You're right. I don't like the CPT and the Plaza. I think they are ugly and boring and very inefficient in terms of their use of space (at least the Plaza is). As for the new Transportation building, I take what you say as correct about its energy efficiency. I do know that I think it is way out of scale with the surrounding residential buildings on Ann Street.

Thanks for taking the time to have an intelligent conversation about the subject.

SD,
Thanks for you compliment. I am not sure that I am as jaded as you say, but I am trying to be realistic here, with a little bit of devil's advocate thrown in for fun (is it a sin to play devil's advocate with regards to saving a church? ;-). I guess that it is in the details.

If it were up to me, I would say save the church at least, but I have no idea how this could be done short of buying it from the parish. There is a group of folks that are probably discussing just that and looking at possible funding sources. I don't know if the parish would be willing to just sell the church building itself, but it would be worth a shot. I don't think that it would be cheap though, but I could be wrong.

You are right that our downtown is unique in large part due to its fascinating history. The church is indeed a cornerstone in that history, but it is still private property. The ultimate decision on whether it stays or goes seems to have been made when the parish moved the church to 421, and then decided to sell the whole complex to a party that they knew was going to demolish it.

Surely these folks have mixed emotions about that decision and would probably give some consideration to those that wanted to purchase, restore and maintain it as a monument. These are tough economic times to think about using public money to do this though.

As far as rehabilitation being "cheaper" than new construction, that may be the case in some instances, but as with the Grand, it is often more expensive, much more. I have followed the "rehab" of the Grand since the beginning, and essentially, they had to gut the whole building and start all over again. All that was left was the shell, because the building was well past its designed life. This is one instance where it would have been cheaper to start all over again. It all depends on the building.

With regard to the twin bridges, remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder...I actually like those bridges. When you really think about it, buildings and bridges are just functional sculpture. Whether you like the design is all very subjective. Certainly, I am not the only one who likes the twin bridges, as this design was approved by many before they were built. They were designed to fit in with the Capital Plaza, which I will be that you hate too! ;-)

Now the new transportation building is another thing all together. I think that public buildings should be designed with function above form. While the shape of the outer shell can be debated (I don't object to that), the energy efficiency cannot. This building has glass exterior walls with the "R" value of one. Government should be leading the private sector by example, and this building is a classic example of energy inefficiency. We simply have to stop building office structures with glass walls...that is insane. I assume that this design was approved by the Fletcher administration...it would fit in with their poor decision making.

Remember, the average Kentuckian uses 70% more electricity than the average American (who is no miser when it comes to energy usage). The average KY house uses 24% more than the national average. Apparently, a lot of Kentuckians "don't care" either. SD, how do you reconcile your "I don't care" attitude about this wasteful energy lifestyle with your obvious concern for what is best for our community? There seem to be a paradox in there somewhere.

Thanks for your very well thought out comments JimiDee. But I think you seem very jaded from all the years you spent working for state government and doing the kind of work you did.

It is true that no building will last forever, but where is the thoughtfulness with regard to which buildings are important to save in Frankfort? Who is making those decisions?

It seems that money always rules the day, as you have pointed out. How can we turn away this $30 million dollar construction project that has an unknown economic benefit to the community? Where is that information? Obviously neither one of us has seen that data.

I just know that our downtown is unique due in large part to its historic fabric.

At what point do we decide to stop tearing everything down, going the cheaper route of new construction instead of rehabilitation, and end up with a bland, lifeless city center.

And speaking of concrete bridges, couldn't something have been done to make the two huge concrete entrance bridges into the city from 127 a little more attractive? Does common sense and bang for the buck mean that we have to live with such ugly structures every day of our lives?

That's really my point. I live downtown in an old house, and yes, it's drafty, but you know what? I don't care. I like it, and I like my downtown.

I hope many photographers have captured the Church. I have a Paul Sawyier print of The Steeples. I also have prints of Frankfort's Bridge Street and Shaker Ferry Road. I must thank my mother for framing and sealing them properly. That was done by Edward Colter. I would like to know more about him. At any rate, since JimiDee is correct about someone purchasing the property, we may have to remember it through art. Did private owners buy the Bibb House and Liberty Hall? I jsut always knew thay were there and never considered that anyone owned them.

As is often the case with these "save our historic building" cases, I have to ask why those who want to preserve the building why they don't buy it.

It worked with Completely Kentucky, didn't it?

I hate the notion of telling willing sellers and willing buyers what they can or cannot do with their property.

With that said, I think downtown could be an interesting part of this city. Keeping a bunch of run-down, empty buildings with sky-high rents and/or heating/cooling costs isn't the way to do it. (This isn't the case with the church, it's certainly not rundown and I can't believe the owners are selling it)

Give us better parking and/or improved transit ($10 taxi from downtown to Signal Ridge is NOT a bargain).