Re: MTCA lawyer says legal bills are subject to attorney-client privilege and not available to unit owners
I haven’t seen any of the pleadings, but how can [MTCA attorney] Levin use that defense when MTCA, which Mindy is a part of, I’m assuming, is the client? So where’s the privilege?
Another example of getting it from both ends; as residents of MTCA with higher assessments, and as taxpayers that have to pay the clerks and deputies and Judges.
Former MTCA president doubts sincerity of current board about landmarking
Let’s assume for a moment that the Board agrees that the MTCA is indeed only 1/3 of the overall Marina City complex; the floors 20 and above in each tower, and the lower level lobbies of each tower. Let’s also assume that the Board strongly believes their statements about the architectural integrity, significance, and aesthetic of these spaces over which they have complete control.
How is it, then, that the Board can make their claim, when a casual search of their commitment to Marina City’s historical integrity is nowhere to be found?
Board members have allowed all of the hallway fire-safety conduits to be covered in a material that is eye-catching, yet totally out-of-place for Marina City’s historical look. The Board is also actively working to remove all current hallway lighting with fixtures that do not even remotely blend in with the architectural aesthetic that is demanded by Marina City.
Board members have authorized the removal of the original outdoor wind screens between units.
Board members have allowed the removal of integrated AC units and the installation of balcony AC fan units.
Board members have allowed the deterioration of the balconies by approving wood platforms and not having requirements for “outdoor carpet/grass.” Moreover, they have allowed the outward appearance of the building to the street and other units to be adversely affected by accepting green colored “grass” and carpeting.
Board members have allowed the outward appearance to deteriorate by allowing white balcony screen doors and have allowed the solid balcony doors to be painted a color other than black.
Board members have failed to acknowledge that the balconies of Marina City are our front facade for passers-by, office workers, and other unit owners, and have instead allowed the propagation of trash, indoor furniture, and storage bins to mar the “front door” presentation of our historic structure.
Board members have failed to coordinate or offer support to unit owners wishing to upgrade their units in a way that maintains the
spirit of Marina City’s uniqueness. They have failed to promote Marina City’s significance with the condo association’s ownership, let alone the public at large.
In many of the above cases, the current Board members THEMSELVES are the ones who have violated the letter and spirit of our ByLaws, Rules, and by extension, the standards of any landmarking committee. I seriously doubt that support for landmarking would exist if the Boards’ irresponsibility were made more public
– Martin Flynn, M.D., former MTCA Director, Vice-President & President
[Dr. Flynn was on the MTCA board of directors from 2000 to 2002.]
Letter to Alderman Reilly urges caution with landmarking
Dear Alderman:
I [am] writing to you today regarding your concern for landmark status for Marina City.
In theory, the idea of landmarking seems like a positive, but I wonder how adopting landmark status to a mixed use complex such as Marina City would affect the long term viability of this complex to grow and change with the times.
This complex was in bankruptcy in the mid nineties, and without the commercial redevelopment bringing Smith & Wollensky, Bin 36, Hotel SAX (formerly The House of Blues Hotel) and House of Blues Club, this complex would be an aging, run down hulk of a complex. We must continue to encourage the complex to grow and transform itself as the times, tastes and venues change.
Since the condo association is less than 1/3 of the square footage of the complex, can it be “landmarked” without the commercial owners cooperation? Our condo Board has taken an adversarial approach to working with the commercial property owners. I hope you do not take the same approach.
As a multi-unit owner, and registered voter in this ward, I think landmark should be approached, but not rushed into. We need to work with commercial to see what their thoughts are and if it would be good for the complex as a whole.
I’m also concerned that many here are rallying the “troops” by telling units owners that the towers could be torn down (wow can you believe that!) and they are misrepresenting the financial benefits to owners of frozen taxes. Many think they would not have to pay real estate taxes at all during those “frozen” years.
Let’s not make this a knee jerk reaction to Dick’s Last Resort relocating here.
We need to be OBJECTIVE – defining the pros and cons of landmarking, work with commercial to see what their intent and ideas are, then formulate a long term plan for the complex.
Alderman, I plead with you to take a slow, deliberate approach to consider landmarking Marina City and not just listen to the fanatical few who are misrepresenting to the residents the facts about landmarking.
–[name withheld by request]
Marina City in no danger of being torn down, so landmark status not important
I happen to agree with the thought that status should be a last resort thing. We live in Henrico County [Virginia] where the old Reynolds Metals complex...resides and when [it was reported that the vacant property would possibly be sold to a developer] who was considering demolishing the buildings and putting a shopping complex...many folks who live in the county (us included) became very concerned we were about to loose a famous local landmark.
That’s when University of Richmond stepped in and purchased the property. The university and many other prominent people in the business community came up with the idea of leasing the property to a company for their headquarters. The governor got involved and the idea was pitched to [Philip Morris USA]. Since they were considering a new home for their headquarters...and they have been a large [employer of] local residents it was felt it was a good fit.
The idea took and PMUSA moved here. There was some opposition voiced by...the anti-tobacco lobby but I think all in all it was a logical move for the property to establish landmark status which was a vital part of holding off the developer who wanted to purchase the property and demolish it.
This is why in the Marina City case landmark status shouldn’t be sought because the complex is not in jeopardy of being destroyed. It is occupied, people are living there, businesses are operating. If anything, another business, one that suits the complex, should be encouraged. One must examine the underlying reasons why the condo board would want to block the space from being occupied by a business that will generate revenue to the complex. Employing landmark status in this case really doesn’t make sense at this point and time, perhaps at a later date when and if it may become important to save the property from extinction. That’s when it should be really considered.
– Joe Mathews Jr., Glen Allen, Virginia
Marina City has changed radically from original design
How can a building be made into a landmark when it has been changed so radically from the original design? The whole front of Marina is changed with a total change in the stairs not only their location but design. The oddly pitched broad stair design was also repeated on the west entrance. Then the addition of the elevator in the front. The worst is the glass-tack...at the base of the west tower. Not in Goldberg’s design, added later to make money. The building has been coated and balcony doors changed and dividers removed. If it should somehow be named a landmark would these things be changed back to the original design?
The thing I miss most is the great wrap around glass entrance in the middle of the plaza where HOB front door is now. This had the escalator leading to the lobby. A terrific way to arrive in a cab and not be dumped on a dark street. I won’t even [mention] the inside of the building as nothing is the same as the original design. The core was to always remain bare concrete along with the lobby pillars. The phony marble went up as they thought it would sell condos.
– Katie Calhoun, Marina City resident
Landmarking attempt by MTCA is an abuse of power
It’s clear that this landmarking attempt is the board’s answer to Dick’s Last Resort. It’s time to embrace the idea that Dick’s is a done deal. Commercial would lose too much money if they were to be denied. They will never go for landmark status. This whole process is an exercise is in trying to abuse their power as board members. Commercial will eventually get tired of the board’s violation of the settlement and probably sue MTCA.
Visitor Comments