I have lived in the city all my life and I agree with "Have You Seen". But a big question is-Can we depend on Goldstein to build a structure that mimics the architecture of the existing buildings?

... the old Cuthbert building? It is not even close to be either historically significant or architecturally significant. It is just an old building full of lead based paint and asbestos. It's floor plan is a relic of office days gone by and is not functional for anyone. It would cost hundreds of thousands to gut and save the shell and if you look closely at the shell, it is just an ugly building.

Philip is a very smart businessman. Don't you think that it would have rented for almost any price if anyone was interested in it? He has owned a building that has stood vacant for years. He has lost tens of thousands of dollars in income and has expereinced no return on his purchase investment. No tenants, either retail or office are interested in this outdated space and unsafe to use space.

If the new building mimics the exsiting style of architecture of the other buildings on that block of the square, and since we already have 4-5 story buildings on East Park square, where is the harm.

I would much rather have a building that is attractive, more consistent with the style of the other buildings on the square, is occupied with quality retail and office on the first two floors and then have somehting really unique for the square ... Have owner occupied condos on the top three floors.

Hasn't it been the goal of the city for this entire century to bring owner occupancts back to the downtown area?

It's an ugly building that is not worth saving. Good ridance and hello something much better and most imporantly, OCCUPIED!