
Like so much of the world today, it seems like years ago we talked of the Hillard Westwood Theater coming down. Only a couple weeks, and only half done.
So we stopped, paused, observed, and thought back.
peace/love
.
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan

Missy - Jim is Photoshop wizard. (give the pups a hug for me?)Missy Limkemann wrote:I would sell what is left of my soul for that Rocky Horror Picture background.
Mr. Taylor, the story that I've gleaned here on The Deck is that the owner had plans to rehabilitate and save The Hiliard Theatre, but that city leadership had different ideas and, through the years, actively denied permits and prevented the owner from saving the structure, up to the point of the city suing the owner. Others here surely know the story better, or can point you to the threads that already tell the story. Some blame belongs to city hall. Replace city hall.jackie f taylor wrote:I can understand a little about letting the Hilliard Theater go, it was so far gone, I blame whoever was in charge at the time, and allowed it happen. that person would have a headache.. me. the city should have demanded, every possible avenue should have been utilized, every grant, storefront renovation program, donations, whatever possible to save it. Who allowed the Hilliard Theater get to such a state, that it had to go. WHO........ idiots.
No, that is not what I have gleaned from the information shared here about the demise of the theater. No one kept the owner of the theater from fixing the giant hole in the roof that got even bigger during Hurricane Sandy in 2012- the thing that probably did the most to destabilize the building and ruin much of it beyond repair. Rehabbing is one thing- keeping a building stabilized/mothballed is another. (Also why we just lost the old power plant on the shoreway- FE did nothing to stabilize it and let it rot.)cmager wrote:Mr. Taylor, the story that I've gleaned here on The Deck is that the owner had plans to rehabilitate and save The Hiliard Theatre, but that city leadership had different ideas and, through the years, actively denied permits and prevented the owner from saving the structure, up to the point of the city suing the owner. Others here surely know the story better, or can point you to the threads that already tell the story. Some blame belongs to city hall. Replace city hall.jackie f taylor wrote:I can understand a little about letting the Hilliard Theater go, it was so far gone, I blame whoever was in charge at the time, and allowed it happen. that person would have a headache.. me. the city should have demanded, every possible avenue should have been utilized, every grant, storefront renovation program, donations, whatever possible to save it. Who allowed the Hilliard Theater get to such a state, that it had to go. WHO........ idiots.
From this thread:http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/v ... rd+theaterBob told me that he had contracted to put a 5-7 year roof over the whole thing at that point but the permit was denied. Complete rebuild right then or nothing.
Not sure if it is true either, but we only have one side here. If I remember correctly, the hole in some form was already there and the structure beneath was likely already compromised. There was a tarp up there even before Hurricane Sandy made it worse. So to say they actively discouraged stabilization might be incorrect because you cannot just slap a new roof on something that is already damaged. This begs the question, though- if something was an ongoing problem or issue, how many chances do you give an owner to do truly meaningful fixes instead of stop gaps that only short term solutions, often after a period of inaction? The hole got bigger and damage was already done- so doing a five year roof may not have been an appropriate solution based on the condition it was already in.Bridget Conant wrote:The roof issue is in dispute, from what has been posted here. According to Terry Tekushan:
From this thread:http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/v ... rd+theaterBob told me that he had contracted to put a 5-7 year roof over the whole thing at that point but the permit was denied. Complete rebuild right then or nothing.
If that is true, it would indicate that the city actually discouraged the attempts to stabilize the structure. I understand that a short term roof is just a patch and a long term solution would eventually be needed, but it could have given the owner time to find financing for the better roof. In the interim, the place would be dry.
Am I mis-remembering? It's been a while. I know there was a large blue tarp up on the roof after the Hurricane Sandy damage, but I thought I remembered one that you could see on the west facing roof even before that?bob dobush wrote:Ms. Molinski, to which "tarp" are you referring? bob d.