City officials continue with plans for Cox building

[The Ledger Independent]

By MISTY MAYNARD Staff Writer
Maysville City Commissioners approved a conditional resolution to exercise an option to purchase the Cox building in downtown Maysville Thursday, if the six-month extension they requested is not signed and returned to them by Sept. 30.




http://maysville-online.com/articles/2006/09/28/local_news/3610city.txt

[ponto]

The Cox building officially belongs to the city of Maysville having spent $200,000.00 of your dollars.

Reports say it was built "by the Masonic Lodge".

As far as the future of the building is concerned, no one is talking.

Some would hope there is a business plan in place prior to spending almost a quarter of a million dollars.

120 year old buildings, like the Cox Building, are usually poor candidates for retro fitting in today's business climate.

[Chuck]

Sometimes you just buy stuff for the investment or the history.

Here is the story on the actual meeting.

http://maysville-online.com/articles/2006/12/29/local_news/3092cox.txt

[Jeremy]

Some interesting trivia about the Cox Building (not sure which are true and which aren't):

The first, is that the huge red cross on the front turret wasn't part of the original design. I'm not sure of an exact date, but it appears to have been added sometime after 1910. It doesn't appear in a photograph from 1909, but does in a photograph from 1922. Somewhere in between it was added.

The second is that there seems to be some historical speculation on whether or not it was actually built by the Masons, and whether it was ever actually used as a Masonic Lodge. This part I'm not completely sure of, but as the story goes former Kentucky Lt. Governor, William H. Cox built it as a gift to the Masons in the hopes that they would induct his son. The Masons ended up not doing that and so the building was never actually turned over to them.

Full Story (http://www.maysvillexplorer.com/blog/1/entries/320/2006-9-The-Cox-Building-Never-a-Masonic-Temple)

[kileyrowland74]

Interesting. Personally, I am all for spending public money to save old buildings, which is akin to me of saving our history.

For example: At the rate Lexington is going, it will be as ugly as Atlanta in another ten years. (I use Atlanta as a model because it's historic preservation motto is also Tear the D--n Thing Down.) Lexington is fast on the way to losing its individual character -- I say give it another ten years. Maysville has got a good -- an *excellent* -- thing going with its old look and feel. I think it will pay off in the long run.

[Chuck]

We are currently losing ground on the war to stop deterioration due to age. We can only assume that our children will continue the fight.

"If" there is no plan in place with also a maintenance plan for upkeep then we are just spending $200,000 to spend a million to tear it down someday. That leave it at a lot value of about $20,000. Not a good investment.

I use the term "If" cause I am not exactly sure there is not a plan in place.

[Jeremy]

If they ever tear down the building, it'd be a real shame. There's really no reason to tear down an old building like that in favor of new construction. If you look at the Ledger Independent building (around $2,000,000) and the new Museum Center (around $3,000,000) and the projected costs of cleaning up the Hayswood Hospital (around $1,000,000), refurbishing an old building versus new construction makes financial sense. And none of those new constructions are half as charming as the Cox Building.

The rennovations on the Washington Opera House cost roughly $3,000,000 and for that price they got more than just a useful new building, they got all the benefits of an attraction for tourists that would have cost the city extra anyway.

If you go down to the floodwall and look at the mural that shows Maysville's early riverfront (around the 1900s) you can count almost 20 buildings that no longer exist today. And that's just the Front Street buildings. I don't think anymore of the buildings that make Maysville charming needs to disappear. And my point here is that it doesn't have to if the powers that be think rennovation before construction. The money will be spent either way. By choosing rennovation you get a whole lot more for your dollar.

[Jeremy]

Actually considering how people thrive off of controversy in Maysville and in the United States as a whole I'll let everyone in on the secret of how to pay for not only the $200,000 but also the complete rennovation of the entire building and more.

Step 1: Set up an account for the rennovation funds.

Step 2: Issue press releases to every media outlet in the country talking about how great the building is historically and how the Maysville government plans to rennovate it and use it for official business. It doesn't matter if the media outlets pick up the story, just so that it is out there.

Step 3:
(This is the most important part and for which I'll catch the most flames :D )
Someone contact the ACLU and similar organizations and complain that the building newly bought by the government of Maysville "for official government business" has a twenty or so foot cross emblazoned on it. Sit back and wait for the ---- to hit the fan.

Step 4: Play up the controversy and even contact Bill O'Reilly, Mike Savage, and all the others who really salivate over this kind of news. In every press release state that "We're only trying to rennovate this building as it is the heart of our city" and mention the rennovation fund.

Step 5: Watch the money roll in.

Step 6: After enough funds have been gathered (and it will, I assure you), have the person who initially filed the complaint quietly withdraw it. If this doesn't end the controversy, go ahead and just remove the cross. That part would totally suck, but considering it wasn't in the original design, the history of the building still remains intact.

(Note: I'm only half serious, but stand by the fact that it would work as a concept and would also flood the town with tourists wanting to see the controversial building.)

[Chuck]

I really don't think the city considers it an option to tear down the building but I do like your train of thought for funding the renovation.

What I am concern with is the growing degradation of past projects. Through hind sight I can attribute it to not having a maintenance and upgrade plan included in the original renovation plan. I was just wanting to plant the seed when a city official reads this.

Take the Flood Wall. Other than the Mural Project not other beautification project has taken place to the actual wall itself or the banks beyond the opening.

It's amazing how a little gray paint can look like concrete and can pleasantly hide stains to people passing in a boat.

[kileyrowland74]

Hmmm. Jeremy, call me a Doubting Thomas but I just don't think that ACLU plan would work.

I hope Maysville doesn't tear down anymore of its old buildings. I wish that people would flood the place and snap up the many old houses that still need renovating, personally (and then renovate them).

Believe it or not, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" is a book that contains some interesting strategies for how to fund the preservation of an historic area -- city planning people. Ahem.