The Caveats Continue - Interpreting Dixie Brewery's Fate

The VA has responded publicly to a December 6, 2010 article in The Louisiana Weekly which announced that the state and other developing parties had plans to demolish the historic Dixie Brewery.

I've been covering the developments surrounding Dixie and the uncertainty that continues to shroud the landmark building here at Inside the Footprint for some time.

While it's good to see the VA stating strongly that the report of planned demolition is erroneous, it's important to look at what is actually being said in the VA's public attempt to rebut the report:

Historic elements of the Dixie Brewery building are incorporated into the design of the research facility (as you can see in the rendering at right). However, VA has yet to gain access to assess the building's structural integrity. If it is not possible to rehabilitate the structure, we will integrate significant features of the historic building in the design of the new VA medical center.

I continue to wonder precisely what that means.  So, "historic elements" of the Dixie Brewery are incorporated into the design - you can see in the image that the entirety of the brick corner tower and dome seem to be present.  That's followed by a "however" - so it's not certain that what we see in the picture will actually come to be. 

Then we see the hinge - "if it is not possible to rehabilitate the structure" - seemingly meaning if VA can't save the brick portion that it shows in the picture, the part it wants to save....then VA will "integrate significant features of the historic building in the design of the new VA medical center."

Does that mean that we ultimately may only see VA put, say, the big green Dixie letters in a corridor in the new facility?  While slightly opaque, the language suggests that there is a difference between the ideal - "historic elements" being incorporated - versus a fallback result - "significant features" being worked into the design.

If you have a different interpretation, please do leave a note in the comments.

For now, while the piece in The Louisiana Weekly may not have been entirely accurate, it seemed to be on to something: we still really don't know how the fate of the Dixie Brewery will play out.

Louisiana Weekly on the Charity Petition and House Moving

Here.

"On Thursday, September 16^th, Dr. Charles C. Mary Jr. applied the 10,000th signature on the petition calling on New Orleans Mayor Mitchell Landrieu to support the reopening of the landmark "Big" Charity Hospital."

A Shift Inside the Footprint - and Outside as Well

I've been off studying for and taking the Bar, and it's good to be back.

In the roughly two weeks I've been gone, the overall picture of the prospects for the Footprint have changed.

While it's unfortunate that Louisiana and the nation are suffering through a period of economic uncertainty, that black cloud may have silver lining as it relates to the people and the historic architecture of the neighborhood.

In this week's edition of The Louisiana Weekly, Christopher Tidmore takes an in-depth look at the politics and players involved in the controversy and makes a rather significant finding.  The headline of the lengthy feature article sums up the new atmosphere that surrounds the project:


"Delays, Cost Overruns May Save Neighborhood"

Here's the introduction to the piece:

What had seemed impossible only a month ago, suddenly entered the realm of reality over the last week.  The news that the new LSU Medical Center would take at least another six months over its original estimated opening date, and cost millions more than was originally proposed for its construction left some senior state officials wondering if the demolition of a historic, 19th-century neighborhood in Mid-City was the best answer.

The article goes on to outline the grim fiscal realities that may ultimately save the neighborhood - the parts that weren't already demolished.

It's unfortunate that dedicated medical care has not yet been restored to the community as anticipated.  But the new fiscal climate makes even more apparent what many, myself included, have been arguing all along: a more limited footprint and the inclusion of the existing Charity facility in the plans is the faster, cheaper, and more responsible way forward.

Sandra Stokes of the Foundation for Historical Louisiana does a great job of outlining the details of those arguments in the body of the Tidmore article linked above.  Be sure to read the whole thing.