On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Met History wrote:

> The lower half of the house is completely gone, built out to the building
> line with a 2 story projecting storefront (Hey, ya want fries wid dat
> raven-burger, Mac?).  Landmark designation would protect the upper 2 floors,
> which are indeed intact.  (This is a resonant issue: I have gotten a call a
> month on this building for the last year and a half by various unconnected
> individuals, many slightly ditsy but still clearly upset about this much more
> than, say, whether South Street is over-restored.)
>
> But I am unclear as to what the point of preservation would be - not that I
> necessarily disagree with that.  Is the goal just to hold on to the upper two
> floors of Poe's house?  Or is the goal to hold on to the building until an
> owner came along who would "restore" the lower facade of the house? Would we
> condemn such a "restoration", or applaud it?  If we would condemn it, would
> we actually prevent it?  How should a preservation commission regulate the
> lower floors of such a building?
>
> Yes, I'll take the fries.
>
> Sign me,  Pit N. Pendulum

So, the preferred alternative is to demolish the thing completely, along
with its Greek Revival neighbors, dump the rubble in a landfill somewhere,
and replace it with a ten-story new building?

That, at least, will eliminate all those bothersome issues and quiet your
ringing phone a little.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com