Isn’t one BB&T building enough?

Please stop selling out our once beautiful downtown — giving up old architecture, charm and character to dollars. The horrendously ugly and mundane hotel now being built across from the Fine Arts Theater on Builtmore Avenue is a perfect example. It looks like a prison to some of us — how could you allow this? Where is respect and appreciation for history, style and integrity?

One BB&T building in town is enough, isn't it? Let's not even mention the industrial-style monstrosity recently placed near City/County Plaza for administration of the park there. Who is approving these designs? Leave St. Lawrence alone! You are clearly not equipped to make wise decisions in these matters.

— Susan Paul

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

3 thoughts on “Isn’t one BB&T building enough?

  1. “You are clearly not equipped to make wise decisions in these matters.”

    City council have been very wise to avoid arbitrary and capricious interference in the rights of property owners. The city cannot deny a property owner the right to develop just because they don’t like it. That would be illegal and the state would have to step in to correct the abuse. The city sets rules for development and if the developer meets these requirements, he does not need their permission to use his property as he sees fit. They CAN, however, extort and bully them (as in the recent case of Super Walmart, which simply moved to Buncombe). That was improper and unwise; now that the city is hard up for revenues to pay law enforcement (oops).
    …………………..

    • bsummers

      Kinda missing the point here Tim(1) – the letter writer is hoping to stop the Basilica development project. In this case, the City is the property owner, and so they would not simply step out of the way and let it be developed, they have to choose to sell it to a developer. Same thing pretty much with the park building, and the 51 Biltmore project – the City (or rather, us) is actually a partner in financing it.

      The ‘private property rights are sacred’ argument gets a little murky when the ‘property’ in question belongs to the public.

  2. Jake

    What do you mean “only one BB&T building”? Don’t you know about the 305-foot tall Ellington that was approved for Biltmore Avenue in 2007 and still has an active permit? Don’t be too surprised if work starts on that ill-conceived monster. It would make 51 Biltmore look tiny.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.