Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Home BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Franchise design requirements & historic buildings
From:
Lawrence Kestenbaum <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BP - His DNA is this long.
Date:
Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:13:16 -0400
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (26 lines)
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Ken Follett wrote:

> That sounds like a very interesting problem, adaptive re-use of a McDonalds
> into a Chinese restaurant. The Golden Sesame Noodle?

This building doesn't look like any McDonald's you've ever seen.  It's a
brown-brick gabled building with front courtyard garden, specifically
designed for the site by a leading architectural firm, and was even meant
to evoke somewhat the historic house that was destroyed for its
construction.  It was an early manifestation of Postmodern.

I believe it was the first time that McDonald's had tolerated any
deviation from their standard design.

The Chinese restaurant proposal is to completely transform the building,
including filling in the front courtyard and so on.

At the meeting where we reviewed (and approved) this, we admitted to each
other that this 1973 McDonald's might have been recognized as a
significant historic building if it had survived another 20 years or so.
In the absence of assigning any significance to the existing building, we
reviewed it as an alteration to a noncontributing structure in a historic
district.

                               Larry Kestenbaum

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV