No, I didn't miss it. It is just that is not the deal that is on the table. It is not where the willing seller's property is located and where the willing buyer wants to build. I was not dealing with hypotheticals, just the facts as we have them. I certainly have no problem with them building it anywhere else in the downtown area, but I would like them build it downtown for sure.

The Church is wanting to sell this property...and it seems that if the judicial center is not the buyer, someone else will be. The fact is that if the Church does not value the property enough to keep it, and spend money to preserve it, then who else will? Old buildings have a lot of character, but they are maintenance, labor and capital intensive. That surely entered into the Church's decision to abandon it...and they have the vested interest in it.

Believe me, I understand the desire of many to keep the structures, but without the owner's matching desires, it is all for naught. I have contributed to the Grand and support its reopening fully (I went there as a kid), but it has taken a lot of dedication by many and a lot of money to rehab the structure. It doesn't seem like there is similar support to do that with the GSC building proper, but I could be wrong.

I have no desire to see the passing of the old GSC into memories and photos only, but that isn't my decision to make. That decision was made a while ago when the parish decided to move out on 421, and then, here more lately when they decided to sell the whole shooting match. The Church has shown in no uncertain terms that it is ready to move on and they don't want to use it anymore for anything.

As with any of these old buildings, they don't last forever and it really is just a matter of time before they are replaced. This is usually based entirely on the desires of the owner, or natural causes. The question is will it be now or later (not if but when)? As far the what is in the best interest of our city, will the next offer for that property have a construction investment of $30,000,000 (that is a hell of a lot of zeros for a small town to turn down) attached to it. The city could do a lot worse that this deal.

JimiDee

You have some very valid points but the one that you seem to have missed is the one regarding building the structure at the other location. The investment will still be there - the people that visit that building from 7 - 5 weekdays will still have their place to work and for some of them to serve time. We just don't want to lose a school building that could be rehabbed into office space, housing or lodging(Benham School House Inn in Harlan is a bed and breakfast).

Yes, the downtown has a long way to go but look at the steps it has made in the past. Serafini's, the Grand soon to open, Buddy's, Cool Comfort, Capital Cellars, etc. I have lived her for 20 years and it has come a long way in that time. Let's not roll on our backs now that we have come this far - lets develop with stewardship of the community in mind.

The church and school have other uses that might come to light that no one is thinking about right now. If they end up in the landfill then all the options are gone. I don't have all the answers but I do know that someone on down the line might. I just want to make sure the tools are there for a wonderful downtown and not just another Generica community.

SaveDowntown, whoa! I know where you are coming from because I used to be there. However, the years have tempered my idealism with reason and practicality. I am merely posing the questions that should be addressed whenever issues like this come up. Hey, I am as sentimental as some, and more than others about this issue. I don't need to read up on it as I used to DO it for a living. My post was not a fact-finding misson. As the state's former historic bridge authority, I am keenly aware of the need to preserve significant examples of historic properties for future generations to appreciate, whenever feasible.

However, there are always trade-offs and other considerations that MUST be made in these matters. In THIS case we are dealing with PRIVATE PROPERTY with a willing seller and buyer. Are you contending that this proposed transaction is tainted with money "under the table"? It seems on the up and up to me. Should the government step in and prevent a private real estate transaction? Are you suggesting that the city buy the property to preserve it? Or what?

Quite frankly, it is simply an exaggeration that preservation "NEVER" trumps economic development. In fact, historic preservation is one of the few things that does trump it and there are examples of it in towns and cities all across the nation. Historic districts are very hard to pierce for anyone proposing a structure or use that does not conform to the strict code. This is a totally different story when it comes to trying to protect farm land from the bulldozer's blade.

My question was how long do these historic districts have absolute authority over all else? 100 years? Forever? Most buildings have a design life of less than 100 years, so how practical is that? This (misdirected?) policy simply drives urban sprawl to the suburbs and consumes (read: destroys) the most valuable thing that we have...unspoiled land. They aren't making any more of that. With a skyrocketing population, energy costs going out the roof and dire environmental consequences of our wasteful ways, how practical is that?

Twenty-five years ago when I worked in KYDOT our section was responsible for inspecting and cataloguing all bridges in the state. We worked with the National Register of Historic Places by providing them with our findings for its determination. This included providing full engineering descriptions and archivally processed 4x5 negatives w/ contact prints of every significant (both locally and regionally) bridge in the state.

Many (if not most) of those bridges have been replaced since then by modern (but relatively 'soulless') concrete structures...but they are safe structures. The older bridges simply were no longer safe for public travel as they had outlived their designed life and practical load limits of modern vehicles. That is reality.

According to your analogies, they should have been preserved these historic structures regardless of the cost and safety issues. That may be possible in a perfect world, but this isn't one and we are faced with nearly certain economic and environmental extinction if we don't radically change our ways.

Just this morning there is an article in the Lexington Herald regarding electricity usage in our state. It reports research that says the average man, woman and child in KY uses 70 percent more electricity that the average American (no telling how much more than the average world citizen). The average KY home uses 24% more electricity than the national average. NO telling how much energy that these old buildings use compared to the average home in KY. This is not sustainable.

Over the years I have lived in some of these old houses in downtown Frankfort and have felt the breeze inside when the wind was blowing and paid the utility bills. It is simply not feasible to continue trying to heat and cool them forever, based on nothing more than their age and sentimental value. That is reality.

I do not know the exact estimates for how much revenue that tourism actually brings into our town, but it would take a very, very long time to accumulate $30,000,000 in revenues...plus the multiplier effect. It would be long after my great grandchildren are gone anyway. Just go down town on a Saturday afternoon and look around at the hordes of tourists flocking to stores. NOT! If Completely Kentucky is the major retail anchor in the downtown that should be an indicator of how bad it is. It is a nice place and all, but not many make a special trip to go shopping there. This is a product of having nearly all commerce located in the sprawl areas in the suburbs. I know a little about that too, as I wrote the Environmental Assessment for Man O' War Blvd...and it has turned out exactly as I predicted.

However, I don't know (and I suspect that neither do you) how many 'new' employees the new judicial center may bring into downtown Frankfort, but that really wasn't my main point anyway. It was the injection of revenues that a $30,000,000 project will bring in plus the energy efficiency of the new structure that I was stressing. I never suggested that building new energy efficient buildings would bring more folks downtown...it is the agencies and businesses in them that will do that, but it is more complicated than that.

With the inevitable decline of the practicality of the personal automobile in this age of the end of big oil's heyday, we simply must look at rebuilding our downtowns to allow folks to be able walk to work, shop, eat and be entertained. That includes replacing buildings and housing that have long since passed their designed life. I have designed and constructed two energy efficient/solar homes in this area myself, and they surely didn't have solid brick walls and hand laid rock foundations, nor were they located in the floodplain. In fact, they didn't have much in common with these old buildings at all. They are building to the future and our very existence depends on us doing just that...and very soon.

No Vivian. They want to build a new school period. Not high school.

I feel the best interests of the community will be served by having the Justice Center moved to the Model Laundry site. The church is too valuable to have it compromised by a three or four story building hugging it.

Once the school or church comes down and goes in the landfill there are no other options. Let's leave them standing and go where demolition has already taken place. There it can go as high as they want it to and be as modern as all the other Judicial Center monsters all across the state. We don't need it where it takes away from the courthouse and removes historic buildings.

The church wants to sell the property, it is not being taken from them . They want to build a high school near their new church

What do we need to do to turn downtown back into the center of the community. Time and time again our leaders have made changes that slowly have drained the life out of downtowm. Spending this kind of money is nothing to sneeze at, but destoying a site that was one of the first chartered churches in the city for a courthouse is in my opinion a mistake. If the compromise is saving the church and losing the school, I'm for it. The biggest problem with Good Shepherd has been maintaining the property. It seems in my 50 or so years as part of the parish, spending money other than places its needed has been the priority. Lets get this right this time so our kids and grandkids will have a downtown.

Historic preservation on the whole has NEVER trumped economic development! Humans always go with the almighty dollor over history, and most of the time that dollar is passed under that table.

But retaining a city's historic character is good economic development because of tourism. People want to visit cities that are unique, not cities that have squandered their character.

Do you think that they should have replaced the buildings on St. Clair that burned with something like another parking garage? Like the one that's sitting there already, too unstable to park in?

Do you think that they should just go ahead and tear down the county courthouse?

Why not raze all of downtown and start over with all brand new buildings? Wouldn't that be building for the future?

I don't believe the new judicial center will bring in new employees that will cater to the downtown businesses during the lunch hour, then go home to their suburban homes after 5 p.m. It's the same people that work downtown now. The people who are coming there to go to court are probably not going to go shopping.

I'm old enough too that I've seen downtown Frankfort become a real dead zone, but I've also seen what has been done with Completely Kentucky, a business that came in, RESTORED a building whose owner was letting it rot to the ground, and is now a major retail anchor downtown.

That is the formula that works for downtowns.

I can't help that people would rather shop at Wal-Mart, but does that mean that we should let our downtown disappear?

Would building new energy efficient new buildings as you suggest bring more people downtown? I don't think so. If you are truly concerned about energy efficiency, you should do some research. It takes less money to REHABILITATE an older building and make it energy efficient than it does to build new. The reason for that is that the construction of a new building creates a HUGE load on the environment.

Also, FARMERS BANK should be congratulated to sponsoring the Summer Concert Series for such a long time. This event has re-introduced people to their downtown. This year's concerts were attended by huge crowds of people. These people appreciate the character of their city, and feel they live somewhere unique. A lot of that feeling comes from the historic architecture, such as the Old Capitol, the backdrop for the concerts. They enjoy socialize on the square so to speak, whether they are hanging out in the unofficial beer garden on St. Clair, having coffee in front of the cafe, or having a picnic on the grounds.

I suggest that you read up on how preservation is good for the economy if you are really interested in understanding this topic.

If you are truly wondering, then you should go the the National Trust for Historic Preservation's website, and read up on it.

At what point in time does the "historic character of downtown" no longer trump economic development, not just in this community but anywhere? Is there a magic number of years where a community just clears off the old and energy inefficient and builds for the future? Or is it forever?

From a financial standpoint, the historic character of Frankfort is a dead zone, just like much of downtown commerce...or what is left of it. I am old enough to have lived in this city when the downtown thrived...then came the urban sprawl and everything changed. Many communities are adopting policies to try and turn development back towards the heart of the city. There are dead Home Depots and ex-Walmarts all over the place that give us reasons why this may be a good idea.

Take a stroll in the downtown area any time after 5:30 PM and I think you will see what I mean about being dead. The running joke is that they roll up the streets in downtown Frankfort after 5...the irony is that the majority of residents of our fine community would not know if they actually did that since they haven't been down there in so long.

A $30 million development in downtown is nothing to sneeze at...just ask any small business owner down there. Do these land owners and workers really want to squash that opportunity?