5 thoughts on “BAR Opposed to Restaurant Tents”

  1. Quit quibbling over tents and demand that the property owner either finish or (preferably) tear down that Landmark monstrosity.

  2. Arguing that the BAR should not act on this because of the continued presence of the Landmark ruin is wrong on two counts. (this point is also brought forth on the CT link)

    One, it is relativism, to say that it is unnecessary to regulate the appearance of the mall because something else on the mall already looks crappy is flawed. One spectacularly flawed project should not become the excuse for other bad ideas.

    Two, does anyone really think that the BAR has the power to force the property owner to demolish or finish the Landmark? The BAR didn’t even have the power to take down tents, it can only stop approving new ones.

  3. I suggest a compromise. The tents have special value, in that they allow a restaurant to experiment with an expansion for a relatively low cost. Jobs are indeed created. If the tent really is temporary then the appearance shouldn’t be a big problem.

    So here’s the idea: restaurants within the BAR’s purview can get a 2 or 3 year permit to use a tent. That should be enough time to establish for sure whether the higher capacity generates enough income to justify building an extra story or otherwise expanding the permanent structure. Its also enough time to figure out how to pay for the expansion, and I would think that a couple years of higher receipts would help a restaurant owner secure a construction loan.

  4. The rule rather than exception is, expansion generally becomes contrary to BAR’s purpose for existence.

  5. Well, discussion of the Landmark is apt when discussing the BAR. The developers of the Landmark were not allowed to demolish the truly ugly “Joe Boxer” facade, due to its ‘historic’ significance (or other such nonsense). This is despite the fact that this facade is almost universally acknowledged to be hideous.

    The people on the BAR do not have good taste. Their architectural judgment is unsound. It is unfortunate that their opinions hold sway with decision makers.

Comments are closed.