Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #690 on Nov 7, 2009, 12:23pm »
I am a bit of both minds. Visiting Rome this year was an incredible experience. I agree that, somehow, the Coloseum and Forum would have been less of an experience had someone tried to restore them to their original appearance. In fact, a small section of the original floor in the Colosium has been built to give visitors a better idea of what the spectators actually saw. I didn't think it interfered in any way with the experience of visiting a ruin, but I'm glad they didn't do anything more than that. One of the most enjoyable books I picked up over there is a book of photos of all of the ancient ruins with transparency overlays that show what they looked like originally; you can flip the overlay to see past or present.
I also enjoy visiting Colonial Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown quite often as I live fairly close to them. Williamsburg is a very special example and I'm not sure anywhere else compares to it. I like to be there when crowds are thin and I can absorb more of the character of the place and let my mind imagine the people who lived there 200 years ago and what life was like, even without the re-enactors. Also, the place has been altered over the years as new information has emerged. For example, they once had a candle-maker shop there, but got rid of it when they found out there wasn't one in colonial days and that candles were cheaper to import. Also, much of it had been built over at the time that the restoration began, so there really was no "original" ruin there to speak of. Recently, a privately-owned, dilapidated, 20th century house was finally purchased and torn down, revealing the foundation of an 18th century coffee house, which is now being restored. Whether you'd rather leave the ruin as it was, or build a restored structure is a matter of one's point of view and I can see both of them.
The Alamo is a very different sort of place right now. Until the plaza is cleared of the sort of commercial enterprises that border the historic site, it is difficult to consider what might work best with a clear mind. It's just so offensive right now that any alternative is preferable. At a minimum, I would like to see the plaza shut off somehow from its modern surroundings, so that visitors get a sense of the space that actually comprises the Alamo, whether anything is restored or not, including re-routing traffic and closing Alamo Street. We've discussed various options before, including attractive markers, paintings, or other indicators that attract visitors and give them a better sense of what was once there and why it's important. That approach alone would cut down on the number of "is that all there is" remarks. Additional restoration could be considered, but that's another can of worms involving city support, funding, legal permits and, above all, alternative views of what's appropriate; what really contributes to the historical experience for visitors.
Having visited many historic sites, I think it is far more important that visitors come away with an understanding of what happened at the Alamo, why it happened, who the principle figures were and where they were coming from, rather than seeing where every brick and board once stood.
Joined: May 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 752 Location: Georgia Karma: 5
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #691 on Nov 7, 2009, 12:41pm »
Not long ago, I visited the San Jose mission near San Antonio, along with the esteemed Craig Covner. Some time after that, he was surprised when I mentioned the fact (I had just read) that the granary there had completely collapsed and been rebuilt. (Covner not knowing this merits headlines, or at least a thread in itself!) Of course, the entire church and associated structures had also almost completely collapsed. When you go there today, what you see is a lovingly restored, and REBUILT mission complex. I defy anyone to walk up to those structures and say that they are in any way obvious reconstructions. If it fooled Covner, then what more can I say? Where, then is the outrage about this? Do you think that there would be NEARLY as many visitors to these rebuilt missions today, if they were just piles of rubble and adobe mud? Where is the purist's love for the nobility of crumbled ruins as it pertains to these places? I'd wager a year's salary, that the same folks who extol the nobility and purity of piles of rock, are the same ones that trek religiously to the missions over and again to ooh and ahh at the beauty of Franciscan architecture. A little consistency would be nice, that's all I'm saying.
"We live in America, we can speak our minds....(if we) offend a bunch of people, well, get a record deal, man, and make your own songs. Johnny Van Zant, of Lynyrd Skynyrd
Joined: Apr 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,235 Karma: 8
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #692 on Nov 7, 2009, 12:58pm »
Quote:
Where, then is the outrage about this? Do you think that there would be NEARLY as many visitors to these rebuilt missions today, if they were just piles of rubble and adobe mud? Where is the purist's love for the nobility of crumbled ruins as it pertains to these places? I'd wager a year's salary, that the same folks who extol the nobility and purity of piles of rock, are the same ones that trek religiously to the missions over and again to ooh and ahh at the beauty of Franciscan architecture. A little consistency would be nice, that's all I'm saying.
But Mark, I think these things are comparing apples and oranges. The proposal on the table doesn't seem to be about restoring the Alamo mission to its former glory (whenever that was)...we're talking about a reconstruction that would showcase the compound in a ruined state. In that regard, this is nothing at all like Williamsburg or most other reconstructed sites that I've visited. The Alamo site is unique geographically. No amount of reconstruction is likely to give the visitor a sense of what it was like in 1836 because the downtown location will always be an impediment. The Emily Morgan will always loom over the walls, as will the rest of the modern skyline. We can give the visitors a sense of the compound's original size in a lot of ways (none of which are being done now). A reconstruction is only one avenue. Jim
But Mark, I think these things are comparing apples and oranges. The proposal on the table doesn't seem to be about restoring the Alamo mission to its former glory (whenever that was)...we're talking about a reconstruction that would showcase the compound in a ruined state. In that regard, this is nothing at all like Williamsburg or most other reconstructed sites that I've visited. The Alamo site is unique geographically. No amount of reconstruction is likely to give the visitor a sense of what it was like in 1836 because the downtown location will always be an impediment. The Emily Morgan will always loom over the walls, as will the rest of the modern skyline. We can give the visitors a sense of the compound's original size in a lot of ways (none of which are being done now). A reconstruction is only one avenue. Jim
To say that the Alamo plaza should not be responsibly restored, even in a partially "ruined" state, because it is surrounded by a modern city, is a bit like saying that the USS Constitution should not have been restored because it is surrounded by modern day Boston. If people are asked to use their imaginations today, in order to better grasp the openness of the plaza, how much easier then, will it be to use those same imaginations when the place is better interpreted by responsible restoration?
"We live in America, we can speak our minds....(if we) offend a bunch of people, well, get a record deal, man, and make your own songs. Johnny Van Zant, of Lynyrd Skynyrd
Joined: Apr 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,235 Karma: 8
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #694 on Nov 7, 2009, 1:27pm »
Quote:
To say that the Alamo plaza should not be responsibly restored, even in a partially "ruined" state, because it is surrounded by a modern city, is a bit like saying that the USS Constitution should not have been restored because it is surrounded by modern day Boston. If people are asked to use their imaginations today, in order to better grasp the openness of the plaza, how much easier then, will it be to use those same imaginations when the place is better interpreted by responsible restoration?
I don't see it that way. Boston doesn't encroach on a ship in a harbor the way the SA skyline encroaches on the Alamo. If a sense of scale is one of the main things we're trying to convey, there are other ways to present that than a reconstruction. I'm not in favor of recreating the compound in its ruined 1836 state. I like the idea of a park that denotes the space and restores some dignity to the area. Different strokes. Jim
"We live in America, we can speak our minds....(if we) offend a bunch of people, well, get a record deal, man, and make your own songs. Johnny Van Zant, of Lynyrd Skynyrd
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #698 on Nov 7, 2009, 4:47pm »
The debate goes on.
I for one am not opposed to reconstructions. Civil War Forts, Sumter and Pulaski come to mind as does Revolutionary Fort Putman and the even older Ticonderoga come easily to mind as valuable learning experiences. Pulaski near Savannah is especially valuable.
As for the Alamo, I for one have thought for a long time that reconstructing the Low Barracks should be done (with all of the various drawings, archeology, etc. we could probably rebuild it with great accuracy). Besides being the historical entrance to the Alamo, I have thought it would be a great entrance to todays Alamo, the Guardhouse could easily be an office that provides brochures/maps of the historic grounds, an audio tour, etc. , while the remainder of the Low Barracks could serve as museum commemorating the non battle history of the mission. If I had my way, I would then convert the Church and the Long Barracks into as much as possible, a Museum of the battle primarily being displays of what happened historically in those areas (ie I would place powder kegs in the powder room show the sacristy as the shelter for the women & children, and depict some of the bloody fighting in the Long Barracks, etc).
For this reason, I really liked Gary's original presentation of the Plaza as a park a quiet place to reflect upon the historic events, with its reconstructed Low Barracks, and other features outlined in different colored brick set into the ground.
There's a lot, in the vision as its evolved that I'm not sure that I do like or support.
Foremost, of these is reconstructing buildings that we really don't know exactly how they looked or exactly where they were located, as Mark Lemon as mentioned elsewhere we have some very good "informed speculation" based on the work of Craig Covnor, Jake Ivey, Gary Zaboley, George Nelson, Mark and others. But, unlike the Low Barracks, this is still speculation and not a 90% solution.
Secondly, this is selective reconstruction, the kitchen, low wall and other features that are ascetically unattractive will not be rebuilt (where's the history in that?). As well as ignoring the northern and northeastern parts of the compound all together. To me if we cannot be historical, an open park is a better commemoration.
My third concern is just whose Alamo is this? I would say it belongs to everybody that loves the story, studies it, etc. But, we know that everybody, just on this forum, never mind the Alamo community at large and probably more importantly the citizens of San Antonio, has a different vision of how the ground should be commemorated. So who decides whose story gets told?
Now when we're discussing the history of the battle, or the compound as Mark very well points out in another topic, not every opinion is entitled to the same weight. But, when we are discussing the future of the plaza, if this is still a constitutional democracy, every opinion does carry the same weight. In fact the only opinion that should carry extra weight in this discussion are the people that have so often been, at best, ignored in these discussions and more often, dare I say it?, chastised in these discussions, the actual private property owners of these historical grounds.
My final concern which I have voiced before, is what can we realistically accomplish in a reasonable period of time?
I still think there is common ground that we can all support and work toward.
Joined: May 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 752 Location: Georgia Karma: 5
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #699 on Nov 7, 2009, 8:42pm »
Interesting points. Wolfpack, we are in agreement in several areas, and disagree in others. I, too think that the Low Barrack can be rebuilt with a high degree of accuracy. It would serve, as you suggested, as a natural entrance to the plaza. And while you didn't mention it, as per our previous discussions, I also believe that you are supportive of the traffic being closed along Alamo Street. These are important points of agreement. Of course, as long as we're on the subject of "if I had my way," we might as well rebuild the Long barracks second story as well. There is an abundance of visual and written evidence to do so. Where I have to part company philosophically, is the area of the West Wall. First, I must disagree, as mentioned in my previous postings, that the Alamo in this area is "unknown." The research carried out by Jake Ivey, Rick Range, Craig Covner, and myself, (with the emphasis on Jake) has allowed us to take GREAT strides in our understanding of what the west wall looked like. I am not talking about generics here. Jake for instance, uncovered deed records pre-dating and post-dating the 1836 siege/battle, which delineates precisely the dimensions, as well as the wall heights, material used (stone vs adobe) as well as precise bearings of the walls of the houses there. This information was incorporated in my book, when I reconstructed the west wall. Wolf, you may have misread my thoughts concerning "informed speculation," or rather "informed opinion." While this is certainly a method used by all of us who know a little about the Alamo, the data about the west wall houses is clearly known, down to the inch. What is not known is perhaps the level of detail required to construct a photographic copy of what the place looked like in the winter of 35/36. But this is not, nor should it be, a limiting factor. As long as the buildings are placed where they were, made of the same stuff, and are the same size, shape height and thickness, what's left as unknown is relatively minor in comparison, and within the acceptable margin or error.
The matter of rebuilding most, and not all of the compound, and the relative pro's and con's, may be left up for honest debate or discussion. I for one would like to see the entire place rebuilt, but I know this will not be possible. So it is a rather moot point, as rebuilding the entire perimeter is just really not feasible. Even Gary knows that.
I'm a little at a loss in understanding the question of "whose Alamo is this?" I think that the telling of "everyone's" story who was involved in the battle, meaning both sides, as well as the Tejanos caught in the middle, should and will, be told. But this being the case has little or no impact on the physical reconstruction of the plaza. architecture is, or should be, politically neutral. As I said in the "Is Every Opinion Valid?" thread, architecture "is what it is" (or "was" in this case). As such, the place may be restored with a strict eye towards architectural accuracy, leaving the "commemoration" to others.
The most curious points raised are those concerning those poor west-wall property owners, and the "extra weight" which ought to be given their opinions in the matter of plaza restoration. Consider if you will, these poor, beleaguered souls...sitting on land of invaluable historic nature, soaked in the blood of immortal Texan patriots, and choosing , as good, free Americans, to ignore all of this silly egg-headed history nonsense, in favor of making an almighty dollar. Why, they should be applauded for their fine embodiment of capitalism, and the free enterprise system. The poor wretches, simply trying to eake out a living soaking tourists of their disposable vacation dollars.... (sarcasm intended) But I hope I may be forgiven if I fail to shed a tear for them. Their callous disregard for their own (presumably) precious Texas history notwithstanding, they are sitting pretty, as it were. Why? Because when (not if) the plaza is restored, they will be crying all the way to the bank when their property is bought from under them, at no doubt insanely inflated (by them) prices....prices as the movie line goes: "Of their own choosing." So, no, they are the very last folks whose welfare I'm worried about.
But while I'll agree that there is common ground in a number of these issues, the bottom line is that all of our opinions, and this forum discussion, while interesting in the extreme, are really academic. Out in the real world, the heavy lifters involved in this project (me excluded) are making very real, tangible strides toward its accomplishment. The idea has built a momentum, and won both money and approval in key places. Things are happening slowly, but steadily. When inspiration and motivation meet political will and money, things generally get done. And that's what I'm seeing now..... So at the risk of sounding blunt, we can debate forever this or that phase, or detail of the plan, but it's going ahead regardless of what we personally want, or think is appropriate. But that doesn't mean that no "tweaks" can be made in the plan. I myself have differences of opinion with Gary about the fine details of restoring the plaza (for instance, I really dislike the fountain in the video, placed in the middle of the restored plaza). But these kinds of things are minor in relation with the overall concept, with which I completely agree. It's going to happen. We'd best get behind it and support it in a constructive way, making suggestions and changes from within, or else dig in your heels and get left behind.
"We live in America, we can speak our minds....(if we) offend a bunch of people, well, get a record deal, man, and make your own songs. Johnny Van Zant, of Lynyrd Skynyrd
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #700 on Nov 7, 2009, 10:41pm »
Mark, I think you may misunderstand me, in what I was saying, about informed speculation.
As you say, we have some very detailed drawings of the Low Barracks - and we know the original footings exsist, thus to me it is possible to build an extremely accurate reconstruction.
I fully agree with what you say about the West Wall buildings, but we know because of the exsisting basements there are no footings, we know that the historical surveys contain errors, we can reasonably be certain of what materials were used, etc. And, we even have a couple of drawings of a couple of the buildings a decade later. But any reconstruction because of what is lacking, is no matter how good the intentions is still at best an informed knowledible assumption and cannot honestly be called an accurate reproduction.
For example in Jameson notes he refers to some specific details added to the house where the wounded Mexican LTC is staying - but because all we have is the key and not the map we have no idea to which house he's refering to. There's other things mentioned in the key, that we really don't know to what he is referring.
And though Jake Ivey wrote several years ago about the SW corner extending south of what is currently depicted, most of us were unaware of this until you and others "rediscoverd''it this March. It is way too easy with such discrepancie to build what ends up being an inaccurate representation of the historical truth.
Now, I'm all in favor of marking where, to the best of our knowledge, these buildings were, and even placing signs (drawings) of what we think these buildings looked like. But, building something permanent that, despite our best intentions and best research, could end up being proven wrong by the next important drawing discovered (Tom Lindley's discovery of the Low Barracks drawing a couple of years ago, comes to mind) - is something that I would seriously be cautious of.
I'll disagree with you that we even know with certainity what the Second Story of the Long Barracks looked like in 1836. We may know how it originally looked and have an idea of what had fallen in etc. But we don't know how much damage was done in December, 1835, when the Texians were taking bets of who could place a cannon shot where.
In the interest of accuracy, you've often mentioned you left a number of things out of your model that we know were there because there was no way for you to prove where exactly they were. Now, I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you, I know you can't be advocating a lesser standard for the real thing. Fundamentally, this is what I am saying, that even the high standards you set for yourself when you made your model must be even higher for a permanent reconstruction on the actual site.
Simply knowing the dimensions and the materials, and probable location are not good enough. This isn't something that can be simply corrected in a second edition.
The one place I 100% disagree with you is the right of property owners (whether we like what they're doing with the property or not is irrelevant). This is one of the fundamental rights that this nation was founded on, it is one of the basic rights that the defenders of the Alamo were fighting for. To me it is almost sacreligious, to say that we are going to honor the men who took up arms and died there by ignoring one of the prinicples that they fought and died for.
And yes I would love to see the street closed (I've said that so many times I didn't think it needed repeating). I think more than anything else we need to work to change the atmosphere of the Plaza, and improve its historical interpetation.
The one place I 100% disagree with you is the right of property owners (whether we like what they're doing with the property or not is irrelevant). This is one of the fundamental rights that this nation was founded on, it is one of the basic rights that the defenders of the Alamo were fighting for. To me it is almost sacreligious, to say that we are going to honor the men who took up arms and died there by ignoring one of the prinicples that they fought and died for.
Herb, I agree that we must always hold true to our fundamental rights. But I, personally, find it sacrilegious that such a sideshow exists on the sacred ground and disagree with you that their use of property is irrelevant. In my opinion, it most certainly is relevant.
Ripley's has, I believe, over 67 locations world wide with two to three in Texas. How hard is it for them to relocate? Certainly, amiable locations could be found on the riverwalk or Houston street, as previously suggested by some.
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #702 on Nov 8, 2009, 1:40am »
Well, if I'm not a SOB, I don't know who is. Point #1: I had a vague notion I was descended from G.B. Jameson. I went to a conference at the Hill Country Hyatt and went to the gift shop and saw "The Illustrated Alamo 1836 A Photograhic Journey." I bought it and it stirred me to do the genealogical research to confirm the family legend. Point #2: I have different tastes about historical perservation, but I was way out of line using the florid language I did about re-creating the plaza. Mea culpa. I have my feelings, but I was rude.
Joined: May 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 752 Location: Georgia Karma: 5
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #703 on Nov 8, 2009, 2:35am »
Wolfpack, Using your logic, the structures at colonial Williamsburg are completely inaccurate, fake, and illegitimate, as they were built from the ground up, based not on photos, as none existed, or extant footings, but entirely on the premise that they looked a certain way based on the time period, other structures of similar type known to have existed then, and maybe a scattered diary description or two...in other words,"informed opinion" and circumstantial evidence.
We are just going to have to disagree on the legitimacy, or accuracy, of a west wall reconstruction, as well as the Long barracks. As for the west wall, I have to stress again that Jake has exhaustively researched this wall, and obtained surveys which describe the houses down to the tenth of an inch. And Rick Range and myself have together measured the wall on-site using these figures. We know the length and depth of these structures, as well as the lengths of the gaps between the buildings. He has a computer model of the entire compound, and has double checked the west wall measurements, which total the same length as the overall length of the wall. In other words, he has it as precise as it is going to get. The SW end of the wall is a known point, and all that is left to do, is then to run his measurements north from that SW point. Houston Street has not, to my knowledge, (with the exception of utility lines) ever been thoroughly excavated, or obliterated, so there are undoubtedly traces of wall across this street (just as were located at the north end of Alamo Street with ground penetrating sonar last March by Rick Range). With the SW point, and the adobe footings from the Radio Shack dig, thus aligned to the north and meeting the evidence which is undoubtedly in the Houston Street area, the result is as close as it is ever going to be possible to get, IMO. And while we of course don't know the exact material condition of each of the west wall houses, we at least know the style in which they were built, as well as how many, and which ones, were still standing in 1836. You seem to want a perfect representation of the "1836" Alamo. But nothing of the sort ever existed. What I mean is that the place changed from day to day, or at least week to week due to human imposed damage, weathering, or both. In addition, walls which were loop-holed reflect the Alamo only after the date this was accomplished, and not before. Any earthworks improved upon by the Texians reflect the place only after these improvements occurred, and not before...so what, then is the "1836 Alamo?" We will never be able to build, or restore such a place, as the Alamo fortress was an organic thing. The best we can do is retrace it's known hard structures and build these known structures according to the best available evidence, and that is immensely more desirable than the freak show we have today. As for the Long Barracks, the earliest known depiction of this structure is the George Fulton 1837 drawing, followed by Mary Maverick's in 1838 (and soon again by others). Remember, Sanchez-Navarro's elevation of the compound supposedly showing the Alamo in 1836, was actually done in 1840. But it is interesting that it shows virtually the same long barracks upper structure that both Fulton and Maverick show a few years later. Whatever damage the Texians did to the place when they were the besiegers in 1835, does not obscure the March 1836 appearance, but rather contributed to it, as what happened in Dec '35, carried over the next few months. So what we have in the Fulton, Sanchez-Navarro, maverick, et al, drawings, is an accurate depiction of the totality of the damage inflicted from Dec 35, to Mar 36. So what we have then, is a very good idea of the Long barracks structure as early as 1837. Are you seriously telling me that such a reconstruction which depicted the long barracks THAT soon after the battle, is LESS desirable than the thing that passes for the long barracks NOW? As for your concern about constructing "something permanent" implies that changes or modifications cannot be made when new evidence comes to light. Why should this be the case? Certainly this eventuality will be planned for, and any needed modifications would, and could, readily be made, (and by the way, made without anyone screaming that we're tearing up an historic structure.) Finally, as for the property owners, I think it is you that has apparently misunderstood me. I most certainly have not ever advocated that these folks be summarily booted from their property. And I submit that as slimy as their motives are, they have the absolute legal right to have, and own, their own property, and to do with it whatever is legal. I just don't think that we need to worry, or weep for them or their rights. Because they are in the most advantageous of positions imagineable. Why? Because 1) The already own prime real estate, 2) They know somebody else wants it, and 3) they'll no doubt wrangle the greatest profit from that property, when the time comes for them to sell. And make no mistake, they will sell, as long as the price is right. So what's the tragedy? I just don't think we have to wring our hands about their rights, or their fate. They are in a great position, and will cry all the way to the bank what their payday comes.
"We live in America, we can speak our minds....(if we) offend a bunch of people, well, get a record deal, man, and make your own songs. Johnny Van Zant, of Lynyrd Skynyrd
Re: The Alamo Plaza Restoration Project « Reply #704 on Nov 8, 2009, 9:13am »
We seem to be running in philosophical circles with the re-stating of positions that have been going on for months. Bottom line for our second resurgence on the Plaza almost five years ago: the Plaza has gone beyond the tipping point of its negativity and irreverence and only a quantum leap can bring that back. How do I know? We believe we have directly spoken to more citizens on the Plaza streets about this issue than probably anyone else. We have worked with or know the key professionals on just about every study done on the Plaza for the last three decades. We have worked persistently with city staffs, councils, and mayors for many years. And like many of you, we have traveled extensively in our work (our clients include National Park Service, State Historic sites, museums, etc) and have listened to the pros and cons of our concerns. It all comes down to AGREEMENT. Nothing else but that. There is no right or wrong, only what works and what doesn't. That's why the Conservation Society decided to raise Mission San Jose up from the ruins. Same with the NPS on hundreds of sites. It was done so the visitor could appreciate that particular location and its history by being being in that space, by feeling the original dimension and its materials. There are no apples/oranges here. Either it works or it doesn't. So, for anyone of us to decide at what point in time something is allowed or not allowed to be authentically recreated goes against evolution and nature itself. The other key aspect about all this is CONSCIOUSNESS. What is the level of consciousness of the Plaza? Look around and your heart (and not the mind) will tell you.
Allen talks about the ruins of Rome but that scale is greater in height and dimension than anything the Alamo can offer--- and Italy is in the process of making authentic copies of key details for many historic cathedral structures such as niches, statues, and other ornate and artistic creations. The Italian officials know that time, pollution, and nature itself will bring any and all man-made things down. They also know that millions of visitors will actually appreciate a recreated structure over just the original footings. And when those recreated pieces go up to replace what has fallen down, you won't find people gawking about saying "look, there's a fake." They understand that the presentation is what stirs the soul. That's the same reason Presidio Santa Barbara and Bents Fort have gone for the full (and authentic) reconstruction in their adobe complexes.
Also, as Mark explained, no one is advocating kicking anyone out of any property in Alamo Plaza. Economics will do that. The entire second and third floor levels on all buildings are vacant. Every one. How much rent does an owner collect from that?
Finally, the Plaza and its physical interpretation of 1836 should be an on-going process of change and improvement as future generations gather missing pieces of the collective puzzle. And that will evolve through nothing more than agreement. GLF
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h285/SentryatHeart/wadeavatar.jpg){kind=avatar}
![[homepage]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)